Here are the results from the New York Times:
Democrats: Sanders 60.0%, Clinton 38.4%
Republicans: Trump 35.1%, Kasich 15.9%, Cruz 11.6%, Bush 11.1%, Rubio 10.6%
A much longer article in the NY Times analyzes the reasons for the outcomes and reports the reactions of various people including campaign staff. I pick a few snippets that seem informative.
The success by two outsider candidates dealt a remarkable rebuke to the political establishment, and all but guaranteed protracted, bruising races for each party’s presidential nomination.
The win for Mr. Sanders amounted to a powerful and painful rejection of Hillary Clinton, who has a deep history with New Hampshire voters and offered policy ideas that seemed to reflect the flinty, moderate politics of the state. But Mr. Sanders, who has proposed an emphatically liberal agenda to raise taxes and impose regulations on Wall Street, drew support from a wide cross-section of voters, even edging her out among women, boosted by his appeal among the young.
Mr. Kasich’s surprise second-place finish was driven by voters who described themselves as moderates and independents and were charmed by his pragmatism and his upbeat campaign.
Hopes dashed for Marco the Rubiot
But as striking as Mr. Kasich’s surge may have been, the fall of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida may have been more significant. Mr. Rubio initially appeared to be capitalizing on his strong finish in Iowa, rising in the polls here, but a disastrous debate performance on Saturday halted his momentum.
For the Democrats, Mr. Sanders’s popularity with liberals, young people, and some women and working-class white men has underscored potential vulnerabilities for Mrs. Clinton in the nominating contests ahead. She is now under enormous pressure to prove that her message can inspire and rally voters.
Clinton advisers gritted their teeth Tuesday night as they dissected exit polls and other data to try to fathom the depth of Mrs. Clinton’s political vulnerabilities. One troubling sign: Mr. Sanders was the choice, nearly unanimously, among voters who said it was most important to have a candidate who is “honest and trustworthy.”
Mrs. Clinton ... has always come across as a pragmatist more than a dreamer, and she rarely intones a vision of America that is broadly inspiring.
“That lack of idealism is what allowed Obama to beat her, and it’s giving Bernie room to grow,” said Dan Payne, a Democratic strategist in Boston who supports Mrs. Clinton.
But this maybe the most telling problem for the Clinton campaign: Sanders won the women's vote. Frank Bruni (NY Times op-ed) speaks to that vote.
... she lost to Sanders among all women by at least seven percentage points, according to exit polling, and among women under 30 by more than 60 points.
Clinton’s gender indeed matters. Just as you couldn’t properly evaluate Obama’s arc without factoring in race, you can’t see her accurately without recognizing that she’s a woman of her time, with all the attendant obstacles, hurts, compromises and tenacity.
That informs — and, ideally, illuminates — her perspective. And her presidency would carry a powerful, constructive symbolism that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.
But those are considerations among many, many others in taking her measure and in casting a vote. To focus only or primarily on them is more reductive than respectful, and to tell women in particular what kind of politics they should practice is the antithesis of feminism, which advocates independence and choices.
Scriber's interpretation: values won over gender.
And before anyone nags on me about gender, know that I remain a devotee of Elizabeth Warren who is in the quadrant "woman" and "progressive values". From commondreams.org, here's one more on the gender issue.