Of Caucuses and Primaries and Conventional Wisdom and Bellwethers

---

---

One of the things that makes American politics so fascinating is the fact it is constantly evolving. Something is always conventional wisdom — until it isn't.

For example, conventional wisdom once held that a candidate for president who had been divorced could not be elected president. A noteworthy example is Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson, who was nominated by the Democrats in 1952 and 1956 but lost both times. He had been divorced in the late 1940s — and did not marry again — and most of the books I have read about Stevenson and presidential politics indicate that his divorce was an obstacle he could never overcome in the more puritanical environment of the 1950s.

But I wouldn't rule out other contributing factors, such as:

When Stevenson ran in 1952, Democrats had held the White House for 20 years, and incumbent Harry Truman's popularity was mired in the 20s, according to Gallup. Voter fatigue was likely a strong factor.

Stevenson's opponent in 1952 was war hero Dwight Eisenhower, who was less than 10 years removed from his triumph in World War II. The amiable, popular Eisenhower was seeking a second term in 1956. That was likely another strong factor.

Stevenson was perceived as an intellectual; while that had appeal for some, it was seen as elitist by blue–collar voters. Yet another strong factor.

Divorce was still a problem for would–be presidents in the '60s. It was problematic for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 1960, 1964 and 1968, but not necessarily a permanent problem. In 1960 his problem had not been divorce but Vice President Richard Nixon. Between 1960 and 1964, however, Rockefeller was divorced from his wife of more than 30 years. Divorce was still an issue in many places, but, as historian Theodore H. White observed at the time, "American politics can accept divorce: for every four new marriages each year, one old marriage breaks up. ... Divorced candidates get elected and re–elected in American life; and even after his divorce Nelson Rockefeller was re–elected."

But, White went on to observe, "Remarriage ... complicates even more the political problem," and Rockefeller's remarriage definitely complicated his presidential campaigns in 1964 and 1968.

Rockefeller did become vice president. When Gerald Ford, the first to be appointed vice president under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, became president after Richard Nixon's resignation, he nominated Rockefeller to take his place. But when Ford was nominated in 1976 for a full four–year term as president, Rockefeller was not his running mate.

It was ironic, I suppose, that, while Ford was never divorced, his wife Betty had been married and divorced prior to her marriage to the future president.

Four years later, divorce and remarriage were not issues at all when Ronald Reagan sought and won the presidency. He had been divorced in 1949 and remarried in 1952, but he was elected president twice by landslides.

In 2016, divorce and remarriage clearly are not part of the political equation. The apparent Republican front–runner, Donald Trump, has been divorced twice and is on his third marriage.

Today, conventional wisdom is being challenged in other more — shall we say? — conventional ways. In truth, conventional wisdom is always being challenged — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Eight years ago, conventional wisdom still held that a black man could not win the presidency. In my grandparents' America — and even my parents' America — that was so. It is so no more.

And, in my grandparents' America and my parents' America, the primary in tiny New Hampshire always played a significant role in the selection of a presidential nominee. New Hampshire only chooses a handful of delegates in its primary, though; alone, they are unlikely to influence the eventual decision at the convention unless the vote is very tight. The primary's real value is in the media attention and perceived momentum it gives the winners.

And much of that was due to New Hampshire's reputation for choosing the ultimate winner of the general election.

It is important to remember that presidential primaries are largely post–World War II creations. For much of our history, the delegates who selected presidential nominees at their parties' conventions were chosen by state party conventions, and the delegates to those conventions were generally chosen at the county level via caucuses.

Thus, caucuses, although not how the delegates from most states are chosen today, have deep roots in the American political system. They operate in quirky and inconsistent (from state to state) ways, but that was how the majority of states chose delegates to the national conventions for a long time.

Primaries have existed since the early 19th century, but unless you're well over 40, you probably have no memory of a time when primaries were still a secondary form of delegate selection — if delegates were chosen at all. Some primaries were called "beauty contests" because the results were not binding on the delegates who were chosen.

New Hampshire has been holding first–in–the–nation primaries to choose delegate slates since 1920. The names of candidates were on the ballot starting in 1952, and the history of the primary from 1952 to 1988 was that it was possible to win a party's presidential nomination without winning the New Hampshire primary, but it was not possible to win the presidency.

But the last three nonincumbents to win the presidency — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — did not win the New Hampshire primary before being elected president. All three won it when they ran for re–election.

Clearly, the conventional wisdom about the New Hampshire primary has changed. It is still the first primary in the nation, but its influence is questionable.

The role of the primary system in the selection of presidential nominees changed in 1976 when Jimmy Carter made a point of running in every primary. Prior to 1976, candidates could pick and choose where to campaign. In many states, delegates were not obligated to follow the primary results when they voted for a presidential nominee at the national convention.

After 1976, voters expected every active candidate's name to be on their state's primary ballot. Whereas maybe one–quarter of states (at most) held primaries in the years before Carter's historic campaign, each party will have primaries in 38 states in 2016.

And the results in each will be reflected in the delegates who go to Philadelphia (Democrats) and Cleveland (Republicans) this summer.

OK, so divorce/remarriage no longer matters in presidential politics, and the winner of New Hampshire won't necessarily win the presidency.

If you're looking for a political bellwether, we may have just witnessed one in South Carolina yesterday.

---

---

Businessman Donald Trump won with just under one–third of the vote. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were locked in a battle for second place and appear to have emerged as Trump's leading challengers. Cruz, of course, won the Iowa caucuses. Rubio has yet to finish first in any presidential electoral contest, but both he and Cruz predicted they would be nominated. Ohio Gov. John Kasich finished fourth. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush withdrew, and Dr. Ben Carson appears to be in the race at least through Nevada's Republican caucuses on Tuesday.

As I observed a few days ago, the South Carolina Republican primary has been won by the party's eventual nominee in every presidential election year but one since 1980 — the last three Republican presidents won the South Carolina primary before being elected. Historically speaking, Trump's win there yesterday should make the nomination, if not the general election, a done deal.

Of course, he also won in New Hampshire, and the history of the last 24 years indicates that, while the winner there might win the nomination, he won't win the election.

Both streaks could continue this year — if Trump wins the nomination but loses the election. Much will depend upon what happens in the next couple of weeks. Polls are suggesting that Trump will win Tuesday's caucuses in Nevada by more than a 2–to–1 margin. Super Tuesday is a week later. If Trump is on a winning streak after Super Tuesday, it will probably be all but over — especially since Cruz's home state of Texas will be voting on Super Tuesday.

---

---

The Democrats held their caucuses in Nevada yesterday, and Hillary Clinton defeated insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, but by a margin that was almost as narrow as the one she had in Iowa.

She seems likely to win next Saturday's South Carolina primary by a comfortable margin — but that was also the conventional wisdom before Iowa and Nevada.

Conventional wisdom holds that Clinton will score well with black voters in South Carolina, who represent more than half of the state's Democrats, because of the good will many blacks still have for her husband. If that proves to be true, she will no doubt win the primary — and in a big way.

But she is still facing a problem with young voters, and the Nevada caucuses revealed her weakness with Latino voters. Neither group has a reputation for voting in large numbers, but they have appeared to be a part of the new emerging Democrat coalition.

What will the outcome in South Carolina next Saturday tell us about the new conventional wisdom concerning those demographics?

The Battle for the Senate

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times.

Practically since the last vote was counted in the 2010 midterm elections, supporters of the administration have bemoaned the difficulty of accomplishing anything with this Congress. Barack Obama can't do anything with this do–nothing Congress, they say.

I find myself struggling to follow the logic.

If the administration has been unable to accomplish its objectives because the Congress — more specifically, the House because that is the chamber that is controlled by the Republicans — has been obstructing its efforts, then it seems to me there are really only two options:

1. Change the president to one who will work with the Congress or


2. Change the majority in Congress to one that will work with the president.

If the American people decide collectively that they want cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, the former seems more likely than the latter.

I mean, for Democrats to control both chambers of Congress, they would need to reverse the outcome of the midterm House elections, and that's a very tall order.

In 2010, Republicans took 64 seats from the Democrats. It wouldn't be necessary for Democrats to win that many to reclaim control of the House — unless the objective was not merely to win control of it but to regain the margin Democrats enjoyed in Obama's first two years in office.

To seize an extremely narrow majority (but a majority nevertheless) in the House, Democrats would need to increase their total by 25 seats in November. That certainly isn't impossible. Americans have taken at least 21 House seats from one party and given them to the other in the last three elections — but two of those elections were midterm election years, not presidential election years.

Historically, such turnover in Congress typically happens in midterm elections.

The party of an incumbent president who is seeking another term usually wins a few House seats in the process, whether the president wins or not, but only one such incumbent in the last 60 years has seen his party win as many seats as Democrats need to capture the House in 2012.

And no one has been suggesting that Democrats are likely to do that.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball indicates that Republicans currently are likely to hold 234 seats, which is 16 more than they need to ensure a majority in 2013 and 2014. Democrats can expect to hold 186. A total of 15 seats are regarded as tossups.

The Rothenberg Political Report says only six House seats are "pure tossups" — and there are five more, although Rothenberg indicates that those seats are leaning, however slightly, to one party or the other.

Well, one thing is certainly clear. Barring the development of something totally unexpected, the numbers just don't seem to be there to flip the House back to the Democrats.

That doesn't faze some of the Democrats I know.

It's no secret that Congress isn't popular, but many Democrats appear to be gambling that, because of that unpopularity, not only will Obama be re–elected but the voters, frustrated by gridlock, will give him a Congress that will work with him.

Don't hold your breath — at least on the latter — writes Alan Abramowitz for Sabato's Crystal Ball.

"[D]espite the abysmal approval ratings that Congress has been receiving," Abramowitz writes, "2012 will not be an anti–incumbent election. That's because opinions about the performance of Congress and opinions about whether most congressional incumbents deserve to be re–elected have little or no influence on the outcomes of congressional elections."

Sweeping losses in the House in a presidential election year (in which a 25–seat turnover is possible) tend to happen when the president (or his surrogate) is in trouble with the voters — in 2008, for example, when Obama was elected after eight years of Republican rule, and in 1980, when Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide.

If a change is going to come in Congress, it seems more likely to come in the Senate, where the Democrats' once filibuster–proof majority was reduced significantly in the 2010 midterms but they still clung to a bare majority.

Only 51 members of the Senate are Democrats, and two independent members of the chamber typically vote with the Democrats, giving them 53 seats. Forty–seven members of the chamber are Republicans.

It's safe to say that — numerically, at least — the bar for success is much lower in the Senate.

If Obama is re–elected, Republicans would need to win four Senate seats to have control of both chambers. That might be easier said than done, but incumbents who win re–election have been known to lose some ground in the Senate simultaneously. Bill Clinton's Democrats lost three Senate seats when he was re–elected in 1996, and Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost a single Senate seat in 1984.

If Obama is defeated, Republicans would need to win only three seats. That would produce a 50–50 tie, but the Republicans would have effective control of the chamber because the new vice president, who would be responsible for casting any tie–breaking votes, would be a Republican.

The fortunes of the individual presidential nominees in certain states could influence the outcome of the battle for the Senate. Rothenberg observes that ticket splitting, in which someone votes for the nominee of one party at the top of the ticket but votes for nominees from the other party in races down the ballot, is "increasingly rare" in America.

Thus, the trend to straight–ticket voting should work in Obama's favor in places like Hawaii and Massachusetts. Both states have long histories of supporting Democrats for president, and both will have Senate races this year. Logically, both seats should be in Democratic hands after the votes are counted, but both are a bit shaky.

In Hawaii, Democratic incumbent Daniel Akaka is retiring, and in Massachusetts, Scott Brown is running for a full six–year term after winning last year's special election to succeed Ted Kennedy. Obama's presence on the ballot could help his party retain — or regain — those seats.

But Obama could just as easily hurt Democratic prospects in states like Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota, Rothenberg says. Presently, Democrats hold all four seats, but two are retiring, and those seats are regarded as likely to flip to the Republicans. The incumbents are running in the other two states, and those races are regarded as tossups by both Sabato and Rothenberg.

Nebraska was already likely to elect a Republican senator before incumbent Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson opted to retire, Sabato writes, so that didn't significantly alter the terrain, and that certainly makes sense, given the state's electoral history. But Nelson's decision "makes a Republican takeover of the Senate a little more likely," Sabato observes.

The task could be made even easier in the weeks and months ahead — and Rothenberg points out that it all could come down to half a dozen states that are considered battlegrounds in the presidential race — and also happen to have Senate races on the ballot: Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Five of those seats (all but Nevada's) are currently held by Democrats, and three of those Democrats (the ones from New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin) are retiring.

New Mexico may be small, but it bears watching. With a reputation for being a bellwether (it's been on the winning side in 23 of the last 25 elections), it might be the most accurate political barometer on Election Night — in more ways than one.

Virginia, as I wrote last month, had been in the Republican column for more than 40 years until it voted for Obama in 2008. But his popularity has declined there, and I am sure that the state will vote Republican in November. The next question would be, will the Republican nominee's coattails help the GOP retake the seat it lost in 2006?

I don't know what to expect in Wisconsin. The state has supported Democratic presidential nominees in the last six presidential elections, and it has seldom sent Republicans to the Senate since the days of Joe McCarthy — but it voted for a Republican over three–term Sen. Russ Feingold i 2010, and it has frequently elected Republican governors, including the one who was elected in 2010.

Both Obama and his eventual opponent can be expected to spend a lot of time and money in those states. It remains to be seen what kind of an effect the presidential race has on the Senate campaigns there.

Obama Shrugged

---

---

"Prosperity is just around the corner."

Herbert Hoover
31st president of the United States

---

Sunny dispositions go a long way for a president, but they can't mask reality.

It probably says a lot more than most Americans would care to know (or admit) about just how shallow many of them really are, but whoever said it first probably was on to something when he observed that George W. Bush was the kind of guy with whom more folks would like to share a beer than Al Gore.

Dubya always had a partyin' frat boy approach to life, even after he stopped drinking and (allegedly) using coke. Given the choice, it came as no surprise to me to think that more people would rather sit down and drink a beer with Dubya and talk about — I don't know — baseball than would choose to sit down with Gore over a beer and talk about — I don't know — Social Security lockboxes.

It was pretty easy to make a voting decision on such superficial issues in 2000. There was a budget surplus, not a deficit that was already historic when Barack Obama took office. Wall Street was thriving, and Main Street was, too.

Remember the atmosphere when the year began? People weren't worried about their jobs. They were worried about how the four–digit year change on their computers might shut everything down in some kind of apocalyptic wave while people were sleeping off their New Year's Eve revelry.

There were no wars being waged by America, and domestic discussion centered largely on what was to be done with the surplus.

By comparison, it was a naive time.

Bush didn't win the popular vote, but he did seem, even to many of Gore's supporters, to project more of a sunny disposition than the often sour Gore — and that could have made the difference with many voters.

Ever since surveys in 1960 indicated that Kennedy had been perceived to be the winner of the debates by those who watched them on television — and Nixon was perceived to be the winner of the debates by the ones who only heard them on radio — presidential elections have been more and more about theatrics and less about reality.

I have often said: Perception is reality.

What the voters think is what matters.

And, when you acknowledge that, you really do have to start wondering if the truth has any value.

Actually, it does — especially when times are hard.

When times are good, people can muse about trivial things — such as with whom they would like to share a beer. When times are hard, they are obsessed with just putting bread on the table — and keeping a roof over that table.

Anyway, it strikes me as kind of ironic that Jonah Goldberg of the New York Post writes about how Obama seems to hate his job. Obama, after all, just announced his intention to run for a second term. That's bipolar behavior if the man hates his job.

OK, Goldberg is a conservative columnist, not exactly one of Obama's friends. And, if you are one of Obama's defenders, you may be inclined to say that Goldberg is putting the spin on the situation that benefits his side.

But he makes a good point. OK, occasionally, he lapses into the partisan language that surely is familiar to most of us by now. At times, though, he is better at it than most.

(i.e., "The president has always had a gift for self–pity. And blame–shifting. 'It's Bush's fault' could be the subtitle of his presidency.")

But Goldberg also has his moments that even Obama's most ardent supporter would be challenged to refute.

(i.e., "He demonized George W. Bush as an evil fool, but Obama has been forced to adopt many of the very policies he derided as evil and foolish. The 'change' candidate is now the 'more of the same' guy.")

---

---

And now, even though he has acknowledged that there really isn't anything a president can do about gas prices, Obama nevertheless took the opportunity to announce on what amounted to a campaign swing through hard–hit–by–the–recession Nevada that he will instruct the attorney general to appoint a task force to see if anyone is taking advantage of consumers.

That isn't a bad pledge for a Democratic president to make — particularly if he doesn't want to lose states like Nevada that voted for him in 2008 but have suffered disproportionately during his presidency — and have a history of supporting Republicans (between 1952 and 2004, Nevada voted for one Democratic nominee).

And it conveniently obscures other facts that a Democratic president wouldn't want observers to dwell upon too long — like the fact that unemployment in Nevada has been far higher — and for far longer — than any time in recent memory. But that kind of tactic can backfire on a president — and for the most unexpected reasons.

Actually, probably the less said in future speeches about that task force the better. I've lost track of the number of task forces Obama has appointed in 2¼ years in office, but I haven't seen any improvements because of them. Obama doesn't need to emphasize that fact, however indirectly.

A Look at 'The Map'

During the weekend, I wrote about the Electoral College and how it works (read: how it really elects the president), and I made my first assessment of Barack Obama and John McCain in their head-to-head matchup in the Electoral College about a month ago.

Today, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics weighed in.

"[E]xcept for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations," Sabato writes, "there's no greater fun to be had in July."

And he affirms some of the points I've been making.

For example ...

Sabato concedes that "[i]t is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides," but he confirms my point, which has been that past election results are a pretty good way to assess the chances that a party's nominee has of winning a given state.

If, as Sabato says, "a half-dozen or more" states switch party allegiances this fall, "that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme."

And, Sabato writes, "If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

The key word in that sentence, whether you're Obama or McCain, is "temporarily." The winner of such a state can't count on its support when the next presidential election campaign rolls around.

For example, if Obama carries Colorado, as many people are suggesting that he might, that would be a significant shift in voting behavior. Colorado has voted for every Republican since 1968 — with the solitary exception of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 (but the voters there resumed their Republican pattern when Clinton ran for re-election).

At this stage of the campaign — nearly four months before Election Day without knowing the identities of either running mate or what may happen in the world before the voters go to the polls — Sabato says it is necessary "to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let's say with the winner receiving 52% or less of the two-party vote."

A lot can happen in four months, and Sabato says "If one candidate's proportion of the vote climbs above 52%, then virtually all the swing states will move in his direction."

In Sabato's current scenario, there are eight states worth a total of 99 electoral votes that qualify as "swing states" — Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. It's a mix of small states (New Hampshire and Nevada), mid-sized states (Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin) and large states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

If these states are still the swing states by the middle of October, states like New Hampshire and Nevada can expect to get as much attention from both parties as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

If this race is as close as it was in 2000, every electoral vote will matter.

Which leads me to another interesting point that Sabato makes.

"History also suggests that the Electoral College system is only critical when the popular vote is reasonably close or disputed. That is, the College can potentially or actually upend the popular vote just in elections where the major-party candidates are within a point or two of one another."

---

---

So where does Sabato think things stand on July 10?

Well, he starts with the states that appear to be "solid" for one party or another.

Obama has 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and D.C. in that column, worth 183 electoral votes.

McCain has 17 "solid" states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) worth 144 electoral votes.

Sabato thinks it would be futile for either candidate to make much of an effort to win any of the "solid" states from the other, and I'm inclined to agree.

I think Sabato is right when he says McCain "will end up wasting a lot of money" if he tries to win a state like California. And I also think Sabato is right when he says he "will be surprised" if Obama is successful at capturing any of McCain's "solid" states — although he acknowledges the possibility that Obama could win Indiana if he puts Sen. Evan Bayh on his ticket.

From the "solid" states, we move on to the ones where the candidates are "likely" to win. These are also states where the chances are better for the opponent to pull off an upset.

Sabato lists only two "likely" states for Obama — Oregon and Minnesota — worth 17 votes (that gives Obama a total of 200 electoral votes from 15 states and D.C.). He lists five "likely" states — Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana and North Dakota — worth 30 electoral votes for McCain (and that gives him 174 electoral votes from 22 states).

From Obama's list, Sabato says McCain's best shot at an upset is in Oregon. "The only way McCain could steal Minnesota is by picking Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate," Sabato says. "However, even a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a 50-50 chance, at best, of carrying Minnesota."

Sabato rates Obama's chances of winning some of McCain's "likely" states as better than his opponent's chances, but he's skeptical about the claim that Obama can produce enough of a turnout among blacks to reverse voting patterns of four decades in the South.

"If Libertarian nominee and former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr wins his projected 6 to 8% in the Peach State, or if Obama chooses former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Obama could have a shot at a plurality victory," Sabato says, "but for now we'll bet on McCain ... A giant African-American turnout might shift Mississippi (38% black) to Obama, but that is not our gamble."

That leaves the states that are "leaning" in one direction or another.

Again, there are two states in Obama's column — Iowa and New Mexico — worth 12 electoral votes. If those two states, along with the "likely" states and the "solid" states that Sabato has identified, do indeed vote for Obama, that gives him 212 electoral votes from 17 states and D.C.

McCain has three states "leaning" in his favor — Florida, Missouri, North Carolina — worth 53 electoral votes. If McCain sweeps all the states in his column, he will receive 227 electoral votes from 25 states.

Of the leaners, Sabato seems confident that Obama can hold both Iowa and New Mexico, especially if he puts New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on his ticket.

In McCain's case, Sabato says, "If he loses even one of them, he will be up against the Electoral College wall."

So then it's up to the states that are too close to call.

"If Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he's already at 269 (one vote short), and would need just one of the following states: Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia," Sabato writes.

"Of course, if McCain managed to secure Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, we'd be at that fabled 269-269 tie."

And, Sabato continues, "If McCain can grab Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, while holding Ohio, he's back in the hunt, with smaller toss-up states proving decisive."

Actually, Sabato's prediction isn't that much different from my own. He allowed himself the luxury of putting the troublesome states in the "toss-up" column. But, excluding the "toss-ups," our predictions were identical.

In my prediction, I gave McCain six of the eight states Sabato lists as "toss-ups" — and, in my scenario, that gave him a 295-243 victory in the Electoral College.

It's all a guessing game right now.

Will the running mates make a difference?

What will happen in the world between now and November 4?

Three Events, Three Winners

Democrats and Republicans alike participated in caucuses in Nevada on Saturday. And Republicans voted in a primary in South Carolina.

Three events, three different winners.

It was a split decision on the Republican side, where Mitt Romney won the Nevada caucus (even though he was largely unopposed there) and the resurgent ex-insurgent, John McCain, won the South Carolina primary.

The results may have had the effect of winnowing the Republican field a bit.

Rep. Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race last night. And there are questions about the plans of Rep. Ron Paul.

But the biggest name that may be leaving the campaign is Fred Thompson. His showing Saturday was dismal compared to his expectations.

Thompson was banking on a strong showing in South Carolina, but McCain has 33% and Mike Huckabee has 30% of the vote there with 97% of the precincts counted this morning. Thompson is a distant third with 16%.

In Nevada, 51% of Republicans gave their support to Romney. His nearest competitors were Paul with 14% and McCain with 13%.

Hillary Clinton had the support of 51% of Nevada's Democrats. Barack Obama was second with 45%. But Obama emerged with the edge in Nevada's convention delegates, 13 to 12.

So, in the race for Democratic delegates, Obama now has 38 and Clinton has 36. John Edwards is third with 18.

Among Republicans, Romney has 66 delegates, McCain has 38 delegates and Huckabee has 26. But despite Romney's nearly two-to-one advantage in the delegate count, John Dickerson writes in Slate that victory in South Carolina essentially makes McCain the "front runner."

What's next on the political calendar? South Carolina again. Only this time, it will be the Democrats who are in the spotlight as they hold their primary next Saturday, Jan. 26.

According to American Research Group, Obama has staked out a lead in South Carolina. The latest survey shows him at 45% while Clinton is second with 39%.

Although the individual numbers vary slightly, Obama has been in front consistently by 6 percentage points.

The Democratic candidates will hold a pre-South Carolina primary debate Monday night, starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time, on CNN. The debate will be held in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Republicans won't have another electoral contest until Jan. 29, when Florida's voters go to the polls. Giuliani has been leading in Florida, where independents can vote in either primary. His strongest challenger for Republican votes appears to be McCain, but his chief rival for independent votes is Thompson.

If Thompson chooses to drop out in the next week and a half, where will his supporters go?

The Outlook in Nevada

The Las Vegas Sun endorsed Hillary Clinton in today's Democratic caucuses in Nevada.

But you couldn't tell it from the first sentence of the editorial. That first sentence was: "One word can sum up George W. Bush’s presidency: incompetence."

In fact, Clinton's name wasn't mentioned until the seventh paragraph. Not the seventh sentence. The seventh paragraph.

I'm not suggesting the Sun isn't sincere in its support for Mrs. Clinton. The complaints are valid, but they don't exactly lay out a case for nominating the New York senator.

It's more like a case against Bush -- and he'll be leaving the White House in a year anyway.

The Elko Daily Free Press gave its endorsements to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

After discussing Obama's and Romney's positions on mining issues, the Daily Free Press went on to assert: "[T]his will be the make-or-break issue for northeastern Nevada voters in November. Our next president must be committed to preserving the hardrock mining industry in the United States."

The Ely Times didn't endorse a candidate, but it made its opinion of the caucus system crystal clear: "We urge the Democrats and Republicans not to resort to the caucus system in 2012," the Times said in an editorial on Thursday.

"We thought we had progressed and taken candidate selection away from party hacks in their smoke-filled back rooms. But apparently all we got rid of was the smoke."

American Research Group reports that its latest survey shows Clinton holding a narrow lead over Obama in today's Democratic caucuses, 35% to 32%. John Edwards is third with 25%, and 8% are undecided.

The rest of the story is that, since December, Clinton's share has dropped by 10 percentage points while Obama has gone up by 14% and Edwards has gone up by 11%. In that time period, three Democrats (Joe Biden, with 4% in the last survey, Chris Dodd, with 2%, and Bill Richardson, with 2%) have dropped out of the race and the undecided share has dropped by three percentage points.

Also, in Nevada, "non-partisan" voters, who are not affiliated with either party, may participate in whichever caucuses they wish. According to American Research Group, the share of likely participants in the Democratic caucus who are regarded as "non-partisan" is 11%. Among those voters, Edwards is the leader with 42%. Behind him is Obama, with 34%. Clinton is trailing badly with 17%.

But, among Democrats who will participate in their caucuses, Clinton is in front with 37%. Obama is second with 32% and Edwards is third with 23%.

And, according to the poll, nearly 90% of the caucus participants will be Democrats, which is good news for Clinton. After all, if the Democrats are supporting her and nearly nine out of 10 participants in the Democratic caucus will be registered Democrats, she's likely to win.

But the bad news is, if the numbers are correct not just in Nevada but nationally as well, she has a lot of work to do to persaude independents to join her campaign. Assuming she wins the nomination.

It hasn't drawn a lot of attention, but a Republican caucus is scheduled in Nevada today.

Among the Republicans, Romney leads with 28%, says American Research Group. Running second is John McCain with 21%. In third place is Fred Thompson with 13%, and fourth place belongs to Rudy Giuliani with 11%. Mike Huckabee is sixth with 8%, trailing Ron Paul with 9%.

The survey indicates that about 94% of likely Republican caucus participants are, indeed, Republicans.

And the numbers suggest a significant shift in preferences among Republicans since December.

A month ago, Nevada's Republicans favored Romney, as American Research Group says they still do today, with 29%, but the second choice was Huckabee, with 23%. And the third choice was Giuliani, with 17%.

So, the bottom line, as they prepare to hold the caucuses, is that Obama and Edwards have been on the way up while Clinton has been on the way down in Nevada's Democratic caucuses. Obama and Edwards seem to have benefited from the withdrawals of Biden, Dodd and Richardson. And the undecideds have started making up their minds.

On the Republican side, Romney appears to have remained constant, but McCain and Thompson are on their way up, while Giuliani and Huckabee are on their way down.

We'll see what the eventual bottom lines turn out to be.