At lunchtime on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders spoke with reporters on his campaign plane, which was on its way to New Hampshire. “This was not a good night for democracy,” the senator said. That was the understatement of the year. At five o’clock in the afternoon, the Iowa Democratic Party finally released some results from Monday’s caucus, which showed Pete Buttigieg running slightly ahead of Sanders in the delegate count, and Sanders running slightly ahead of Buttigieg in the popular vote. The two sets of figures covered only sixty-two per cent of Iowa’s precincts, however, and risked adding to the confusion. In Polk County alone, there were eighty-two precincts that hadn’t reported any votes at all, according to the Times.

In the partial results, Buttigieg had accumulated 26.9 per cent of state delegate equivalents, and Sanders had 25.2 per cent. On this basis, Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, speaking in New Hampshire, hailed “an astonishing victory for this campaign.” In terms of raw votes, however, Buttigieg was trailing Sanders by 1,184 votes, prompting some backers of the Vermont senator to declare victory, too. The Sanders campaign itself was more circumspect. Jeff Weaver, a senior Sanders-campaign adviser, said, in a statement, “We are gratified that in the partial data released so far it’s clear that in the first and second round more people voted for Bernie than any other candidate in the field.”

In a caucus setting, the delegate count can differ from the popular vote because of differences in the sizes of precincts and also because of the realignment of votes from candidates that don’t meet the threshold for viability. With so many votes still not reported, the most important learning from the figures that were released is that Buttigieg and Sanders separated themselves from the rest of the field. The results showed a significant drop from Buttigieg and Sanders to Elizabeth Warren, who was in third place, with 18.3 per cent of the state delegate equivalents; Joe Biden, who was in fourth, with 15.6 per cent; and Amy Klobuchar, who was in fifth, with 12.6 per cent.

Regardless of all the chaos, therefore, Buttigieg and Sanders both have grounds for celebration. In recent weeks, the former mayor of South Bend had seen his poll ratings dip as he clashed with Warren and came under attack from activist groups. Having staked everything on Iowa, he badly needed a good result there, and he got one. The partial results showed that his support was spread across the state, encompassing urban, suburban, and rural precincts. Buttigieg said the result demonstrated that he could appeal to many different types of Democrats, and also to independents and “future former Republicans.”

In these polarized times, Buttigieg is something of a Presidential throwback: a young, hyper-articulate, center-left Democrat who hails from the middle of the country. Will he be able to surge in New Hampshire, where he has been in fourth place in the polls? And can he broaden his appeal to minority voters, who will play a key role in Nevada and South Carolina, and also on Super Tuesday?

As for Sanders, many analysts have long underestimated him. The Iowa vote confirmed that his populist, anti-establishment platform resonates strongly. “The message that Iowa has sent to the nation is that we want a government that represents all of us, not just wealthy campaign contributors and the one per cent,” he said on Monday night. Importantly, and unlike in 2016, Sanders has also made a determined effort to broaden his appeal beyond economic populism. From the beginning, his campaign sought to deepen its links with black, Latino, Native American, and L.G.B.T.Q. voters, which are all important parts of the Democratic Party. These efforts are now paying off, although Sanders did concede that he was disappointed in the Iowa turnout, which appears to have been lower than expected.

One question now is whether all the disarray surrounding the result will reduce the bounce that winners in Iowa traditionally enjoy. With just forty-one pledged delegates up for grabs, out of a total of nearly four thousand, the Iowa caucus carries little mathematical weight in the over-all Democratic primary. It matters primarily because of its impact on the campaign narrative, which can influence voter enthusiasm, media coverage, and fund-raising. In this instance, the central narrative coming out of Iowa in the twenty-four hours after the caucus was one of delay, dysfunction, and uncertainty. Commenting on CNN, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s former chief campaign strategist, noted that Buttigieg had been hoping to cannon into New Hampshire, but in the end “it was a pop gun, because we didn’t get the results.”

About the only Presidential candidates who stand to benefit from the chaos are Michael Bloomberg, who is sitting out the first four Democratic contests, and Donald Trump, who is busy gloating about the Democrats’ troubles. On Tuesday, Bloomberg “authorized his campaign team to double his spending on television commercials in every market where he is currently advertising,” the Times reported. Trump tweeted, “The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country.”

The other big story coming out of the preliminary results from Iowa was Biden’s poor showing. For months, the former Vice-President’s campaign had been downplaying expectations for Iowa, where the electorate is whiter than the national average. (Biden does best among older and nonwhite voters.) If the final result matches the partial ones, there is no way to sugarcoat what happened on Monday. During the run-up to the caucus, Biden was in second place in the Real Clear Politics poll average for Iowa, ahead of Buttigieg. To tumble to a projected weak fourth place is an alarming result for someone who has been leading the national polls since before he entered the race last year. Among political operatives, there has long been a theory that Biden’s national support could crater after a weak performance in Iowa. Between now and the South Carolina primary, on February 29th, that theory will be tested.

Rising above the individual candidates, the partial results from Iowa showed a fairly even split between the Democratic Party’s progressive and moderate wings. The preliminary tally shows Sanders, Warren, and Yang, who supports a universal basic income, with 51,821 votes between them. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have 54,894 votes combined.

The caucus did illustrate a yawning age gap. Among caucus-goers between the ages of seventeen and twenty-nine, forty-eight per cent voted for Sanders, and just three per cent voted for Biden, according to an NBC News entrance poll. Among voters sixty-five and older, the pattern flipped: Biden led the field, with thirty-three per cent, and Sanders got just four per cent. Buttigieg and Warren managed to straddle the age divide, but neither of them attracted nearly as many young voters as Sanders or as many old voters as Biden.

These numbers point to a protracted and competitive primary, which could end in a contested convention. There is a long, long way to go before the outcome is decided. Hopefully, the rest of the contest will go more smoothly.