Cruz's Gambit

---

---

We have a Republican presidential primary coming up on Tuesday along with two caucuses (Utah and American Samoa) — then two weeks until the next time voters go to the polls. Time is short — almost two–thirds of the states have been heard from now.

I hear a lot of talk of a contested convention, but there has only been one convention in my lifetime — the 1976 Republican convention — that went down to the wire. I have my doubts that this year's convention will be the second almost–contested convention in my lifetime.

See, the thing is that Donald Trump's candidacy is the kind of phenomenon that political observers have rarely seen. They function in a world of conventional wisdom, but what is happening is spinning conventional wisdom on its ear. In 1976 conventional wisdom eventually won out, and President Gerald Ford defeated challenger (outsider?) Ronald Reagan.

Trump reminds me more of Ross Perot in 1992 — a wealthy man who promised to run government efficiently, like a well–run business. Trump has gone far beyond where Perot ever did, perhaps because he has pursued the presidency through an established party rather than seeking the office as an independent.

Trump also reminds me, in a way, of Barack Obama eight years ago. Trump is not the first outsider businessman to seek the presidency, just as Obama was not the first black man to seek the presidency. But Obama capitalized on and exceeded the achievements of his predecessors, and Trump appears poised to exceed Perot's achievements as well.

It's easy to forget from the perspective of 2016 what Perot achieved in the general election of 1992. He didn't carry any states, but he received nearly 19% of the national popular vote.

On the Republican side it is, essentially, down to two candidates, Trump and Ted Cruz. There is a third candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, but he is already mathematically eliminated from a first–ballot nomination even if he runs the table the rest of the way in this new winner–take–all delegate environment. He is no longer focused on winning the nomination on the first ballot, when most delegates are committed to certain candidates by the voters of their states. He is looking beyond that.

However, with Marco Rubio out of the picture, Cruz appears to believe he has a chance to inflict some damage on Trump and, if not secure enough delegates going into the convention to assure himself of the nomination, have enough delegates committed to him to prevent Trump from winning the nomination on the first ballot.

Cruz has been talking about how well he has performed in closed primaries — primaries held in states where voters are required to declare their party affiliation upon registering and vote in only that party's primaries. And that's true.

But there are two sides to this coin.

Cruz contends he is the best choice to be a standard bearer for Republicans because he has outperformed Trump in primaries in which only registered Republicans can participate.

Trump has performed better in the open primaries where voters can declare in which party's primary they want to participate, and he has been drawing support from Democrats and independents. Some have been motivated by a desire to throw a wrench into the works, but others have been motivated by genuine support for Trump. Consequently, Trump can argue — with at least some validity — that his victories in the open primaries demonstrate his appeal for the broader electorate in the general election.

This phase of the electoral calendar may tell us who is right — or, at least, whose case makes the most sense to Republican voters.

The primary on Tuesday is being held in Arizona; it's a closed primary that will award all 58 of its delegates to whoever finishes first. Based on Cruz's logic, he should do well there, right? Well, the latest Merrill Poll, released just a few days ago, found the winner is likely to be Trump.

Kasich's strategy is different. He knows he can't win the nomination on the first ballot so his objective is to prevent Trump from reaching the magic number and force the Republican nominating process to a second ballot for the first time since 1948. If Cruz can win in the West, Kasich will be trying to win in the East — in places like Pennsylvania and New York.

Call it a triangulation theory. It's also a longshot, at least at this stage of the race. Trump is more than halfway to the number of committed delegates he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot.

The New York primary is a closed primary that will be held on April 19. According to the Emerson Poll that was released Friday, Trump has a decisive lead over Cruz there. Kasich is no help; he barely drew 1% in the poll. New York is a winner–take–most primary, which most likely means Trump will win about 80 or 85 of the state's 95 delegates.

Pennsylvania's winner–take–all primary is a week later — on April 26. The most recent survey I have seen from Pennsylvania was published about a week and a half ago. It was Harper Polling's survey, and it showed Trump with a 2–to–1 lead over Marco Rubio, who suspended his campaign after losing in Florida about a week after Harper's poll results were published. Unless something dramatic happens, Trump seems well on his way to winning Pennsylvania's 71 delegates.

There will be other primaries, too, but the ones I have just mentioned are the ones that are likely to get the most attention in the next five weeks. Anyway, for Cruz and Kasich, the news doesn't get much better in those lesser primaries.

On April 5, Wisconsin holds a winner–take–all primary. It will be an open primary, too, so Democrats and independents can participate if they wish, and Wisconsin is the only state doing anything that day. Whoever finishes first wins 42 delegates. I haven't seen any polls from there so I don't know who is leading, but I can say that Wisconsin was one of those Rust Belt states that was hurt by trade agreements in recent years. That seems to have benefited Trump in Michigan and Illinois.

New York also will have the political spotlight to itself, but Pennsylvania will be one of five states holding primaries on April 26. Those states are mostly in the Northeast, which will be a test for Kasich's appeal to a presumably more centrist electorate.

The other four states to vote on April 26 are Connecticut (26 delegates), Delaware (16 delegates), Maryland (38 delegates) and Rhode Island (19 delegates). All but one of those April 26 primaries will be closed. Rhode Island's primary is "semi–closed" — whatever that means.

And most of the primaries being held that day will be winner–take–all contests. Connecticut is winner–take–most and Rhode Island is proportional. Since most of the primaries that day are closed, that should favor Cruz, based on his own assessment, but the region of the country should be more favorable to a moderate like Kasich. Polls indicate, however, that Trump is leading and may improve on his lead in the weeks ahead.

And, of course, looming out there on the Western horizon is California with its winner–take–all prize of 172 delegates. California Republicans won't vote until June 7, but in the latest poll I have seen 38% of likely voters favored Trump. It is worth noting that the poll results were released the day of the Florida and Ohio primaries. Rubio was still in the race, and Kasich had not yet won his home state, but both were included in the poll with Trump and Cruz. Rubio polled 10%, which by itself would not be enough for Cruz to overtake Trump. Neither would the 9% who said they were undecided.

Together, though, they would be enough — as long as not too many of those voters broke for Trump. That is how sizable Trump's lead is in California.

Clearly, it's a pretty steep mountain Cruz and Kasich must climb if they are to prevent Trump from claiming the nomination in Cleveland this July.

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 Rubber Hits the Road

---

---

The past, as they say, is prologue, and the changing of the calendar to the official start of a presidential election year brings a new seriousness to the pursuits of the parties' presidential nominations.

All that went before was little more than strutting and posturing. The party campaigns were popularity contests last year, entertaining but, once the holidays are over and the primaries loom on the horizon, the rhetoric becomes strangely irrelevant.

Participation is what is relevant, and that is a whole other thing.

The people who participate in the voting that will matter — the contests that will assign the actual delegates who will be voting at this summer's conventions — will be highly motivated, especially the ones who participate in the caucuses. They are very different from primaries.

If you live in a caucus state, you must get organized with like–minded folks so you can make an effective case for your candidate at the caucus. Caucus goers often have to devote several hours to their caucus — as opposed to those who vote in primaries, in which you may have to stand in line for awhile but, eventually, you will only spend a brief period in the polling booth — and you will do so alone. With the extended voting periods in so many states, if you plan it well, you can walk right in, vote and walk back out in a matter of minutes. I know. I've done it.

Taking part in either a primary or a caucus does require a level of commitment that not everyone is willing to make. Those are the only poll results I want to see. It doesn't really mean anything until people start voting in primaries or caucuses.

The people who attend political rallies may be registered to vote, but registered voters and likely voters are two different breeds altogether.

It doesn't take much commitment to attend a political rally. Donald Trump has been drawing thousands to his rallies, but many in the crowds are those who, while they may be registered to vote, do not tend to make a habit of voting. Thus, they are not likely voters.

Of course, the same could be said of many who attended Ross Perot's rallies in 1992, but in the end Perot brought nearly 20 million Americans into the electoral process. It remains to be seen if Trump's supporters can match Perot's in terms of commitment.

And we'll start finding out in three weeks, when Iowa holds its caucuses.

The closer we get to actual voting, the more pollsters seem to be moving in the direction of differentiating between merely registered voters and likely voters.

Reach Communications' most recent survey ahead of the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary was conducted with Republicans and independents who said they would be voting in the primary. Donald Trump led by 20 percentage points. Fox News' most recent poll was with likely voters, who are determined through a series of screening questions. That survey showed Trump with an 18–point lead.

Public Policy Polling's latest survey — also conducted among likely voters — shows Trump with a 14–point lead.

The Trump–Ted Cruz battle in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses could be fierce. The most recent Gravis Marketing survey in Iowa was conducted in December, but it, too, emphasized those who were likely to participate. It found Trump and Cruz tied at 31% apiece.

"Many more people say they will vote than actually do," observes the Gallup Organization at its website, "so it is not sufficient to simply ask people whether they will vote."

Gallup's screening questions are:

---

Thought given to election (quite a lot, some)
Know where people in neighborhood go to vote (yes)
Voted in election precinct before (yes)
How often vote (always, nearly always)
Plan to vote in 2016 election (yes)
Likelihood of voting on a 10-point scale (7-10)
Voted in last presidential election (yes)

---

Each pollster uses its own screening questions, but the process is essentially the same from one to another.

My guess is that, as we get closer to each primary or caucus, the polls from each state will be conducted with likely voters.

And that is when we will start to get an idea whether a candidate's support has any real depth to it.

Super Tuesday

Republicans in one–fifth of the 50 states voted in primaries or caucuses yesterday.

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times insists that no "knockout punch" was delivered — and that may be so, but it is hardly surprising that someone at the Times, given the overwhelming advantage that left–leaning columnists enjoy there (and the fact that the Times' general editorial policies have favored the left for a long time), should feel that way.

The Wall Street Journal, which is not a left–leaning publication, also is not convinced that Super Tuesday has given anyone the momentum he needs to win the nomination. The Journal says Super Tuesday was a "split decision — "While Mitt Romney had a good night and stretched his lead among delegates, Rick Santorum did well enough to more than justify staying in the race."

The fact remains, though, that Mitt Romney finished first in six of those 10 contests. His margin of victory ranged from impressive to slim, but he can claim to have beaten party rivals in two of the biggest prizes that are likely to be up for grabs on Election Day in November — Florida and, now, Ohio.

Three if you include Romney's victory in Michigan (which hasn't necessarily been in doubt in recent elections, but, because it has been through such a difficult time in this recession, it could be a swing state in 2012).

The win in Ohio was particularly impressive, I thought. Santorum led Romney there by double digits a few weeks ago, but he finished second to Romney there yesterday.

True, Santorum did win three contests (North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee), but they were in states the Republicans are sure to win in November, anyway — and only the win in North Dakota was unexpected.

And Newt Gingrich won Georgia, the state he represented in the House for 20 years, but Georgia, too, is all but certain to be in the Republican column.

If Gingrich had lost in Georgia, that could have been a game changer. Without a win in his home state, Gingrich's best move probably would have been to fold up his tent — leaving the ultra–conservative vote to Santorum, who could have re–focused his efforts on winning the support of Republican centrists and right–of–center voters.

Instead, the fight for the extreme right will go on — to Alabama, Mississippi and Kansas next week.

Romney also won a few states that will probably vote Republican in the fall — Alaska and Virginia (which voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but are likely to be in the Republican column this November) — but he demonstrated an ability to win in states that will be important to Republican hopes for recapturing the White House.

No one is suggesting, of course, that Romney can win in Vermont or Massachusetts. But the voters there are more centrist than the Republican voters in general, and being able to win their support is going to be an important element in what is likely to be a complex and extremely tight campaign this fall.

There are still serious issues to be discussed — and, hopefully, they will be discussed between now and Election Day. Hopefully, this campaign will not prove to be like so many in recent times — in which minor distractions have been given most, if not all, of the attention.

Anticipating Super Tuesday

There's always a Super Tuesday in America's presidential politics — at least in modern times.

Presidential primaries are, as I have mentioned here before, relatively new phenomena in American politics — historically speaking.

Before Jimmy Carter made a point of entering every primary that was being held in 1976 (which caused a bit of a fuss back then), candidates would choose to enter some primaries and not to enter others.

After Carter was elected president, more states opted to hold primaries in both parties, and candidates felt obliged to enter all or most of them.

Somewhere along the line, each party's leadership happened on to the notion of holding several primaries on a single day, creating a Super Tuesday that would unofficially separate the presumptive nominee from the pretenders.

There are both pros and cons in this, and it is not my intention, on this occasion, to argue in favor or against having a Super Tuesday. That decision has been made for this presidential election cycle, for good or ill, and we're going to have one tomorrow.

So my objective is to anticipate what is likely to happen. More delegates will be up for grabs on Tuesday than have been committed so far:

• Georgia (76 delegates): Newt Gingrich represented a House district in northwest Georgia for 20 years, and he appears to have an unshakeable lead among the Republicans there.
  
  If Gingrich wins his home state, it will be only his second win in the primaries — and both will have been in the South. He won't have established himself as a vote getter in any other region.
  
  I don't know if his campaign will continue after tomorrow, but even if it does, I really don't think he will be much of a factor the rest of the way.


• Ohio (66): This is really the big prize. Although Ohio is not the most delegate–rich state that is voting on Tuesday, people pay attention to the results there because Ohio is a large state and what happens there is often seen as a national barometer.
  
  And, in fact, Ohio does have a reputation for being a national bellwether. What's more, no Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio.
  
  Thus, it is an attractive target. Victory there could have significant implications for the rest of the GOP race.
  
  As late as last week, polls showed Rick Santorum with a narrow lead over Mitt Romney. But I'm inclined to think that Romney's win in Saturday's Washington state caucuses — a state in which Romney's campaign didn't expect to do well originally — could give him the momentum he needs to win Ohio.
  
  Romney seems to sense as much. As CNN reports, the former Massachusetts governor appeared confident as he campaigned in Ohio during the weekend.


• Tennessee (58): Santorum may lose Ohio — I think he will — but his message is stronger than Romney's in the conservative South, and my sense is that he will win the Volunteer State handily.
  
  If Romney is the Republican standard bearer, though, I see most, if not all, the states in the South voting for him — as they did when John McCain — and, before him, Bob Dole — was the nominee. Romney will need to work to win over Southern Republicans, but he won't have to work too hard to get their votes this fall.


• Virginia (49): With only two names on the ballot — Romney and Ron Paul — this could be a deceptively lopsided primary.
  
  I was discussing this with my father the other night, and he observed that Paul would win his usual 10% of the popular vote. That's probably an exaggeration. I expect Paul to be a little more competitive in Virginia than that — I mean, there must be some voters in Virginia who would like to be voting for Santorum or Gingrich, but neither is on the ballot so they have no alternative but to vote for Paul if they wish to record their dissatisfaction with the apparent nominee.
  
  Nevertheless, I do expect Romney to win by a wide margin in Virginia.


• Oklahoma (43): I grew up in the South. Most of the time, I lived in Arkansas, but I also lived in Tennessee (briefly). As an adult, I have lived mostly in Arkansas and Texas, but I lived in Oklahoma for four years.
  
  Many people consider Oklahoma a part of the South, but I don't. To me, a Southern state is any state that was part of the United States when the Civil War occurred and chose to fight on the side of the South. Oklahoma did not join the Union until the 20th century.
  
  Oklahoma is every bit as conservative as any traditional Southern state, though, and that could certainly be bewildering at first glance. There are, after all, more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the state. But, in many cases, Democrat has a more middle–of–the–road definition in Oklahoma than it does anywhere else, and the truth is that Oklahomans have only voted for the Democrats' presidential nominee once in the last 60 years.
  
  Sometimes their support is a bit tepid, but more Oklahomans vote for the Republican than the Democrat. Every time.
  
  Consequently, if Romney wins the nomination, I think he can count on Oklahoma's support in November — but I don't think he can count on Oklahoma tomorrow. Only registered Republicans will be voting, and they are a decidedly conservative bunch in Oklahoma.
  
  There was a definite evangelical influence in Oklahoma politics when I lived there, and I have no reason to think that has changed. My sense is that Santorum's anti–abortion, anti–contraception fervor will resonate with Oklahoma Republicans, and I expect him to win the Sooner state.


• Massachusetts (41): I've heard nothing to indicate that Romney won't win the state where he served as governor.
  
  He beat McCain in the 2008 primary, and I expect him to win easily tomorrow.


• Idaho caucuses (32): This one bewilders me. Idaho held a primary four years ago but switched to a caucus, which tends to appeal to party activists more than casual participants.
  
  The 2008 primary offers no clues to how Idahoans might vote. McCain won it with 70%. Paul received 24%.
  
  But Idaho is a rock–ribbed Republican state. Three–quarters of its state senators and more than 80% of its state representatives are Republicans, as are Idaho's governor and both of its U.S. senators.
  
  No Democrat has won Idaho since 1964, and, in most elections, Democratic presidential nominees cannot count on the support of as much as 40% of the voters on Election Day.
  
  I feel confident in predicting that the Republican nominee will win Idaho this fall, but I don't have a clue who will win there tomorrow.


• North Dakota caucuses (28): North Dakota is as much an enigma to me as Idaho.
  
  It has roughly the same history of supporting Republican candidates — albeit not as decisively — although, to be fair, it was fairly competitive in 2008.
  
  Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that the Republican nominee will win North Dakota in November. Who will win it tomorrow is less certain.


• Alaska district conventions (27): I haven't heard any poll results from Alaska, and I am unaware of any campaign appearances that any of the Republicans have made there.
  
  But Alaska is like North Dakota and Iowa. It is likely to vote Republican in November. Of the 13 presidential elections in which it has participated, Alaska has voted Republican in 12.
  
  Alaska does seem to have something of a libertarian streak so it wouldn't surprise me if, in a four–way race, Paul might be able to win Alaska.


• Vermont (17): Vermont was once a reliably Republican state.
  
  In the 19th century, Vermont routinely gave at least 70% of its votes to the Republicans. In the 20th century, it never voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt, even though it had four opportunities.
  
  But the Democrats have carried Vermont in the last five presidential elections, and they probably will again. Vermont leans to the left these days — it gave two–thirds of its ballots to Obama in 2008. Even its Republicans, who have a lot more in common with retiring Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe than they do with most of the Republicans who are seeking the presidency, are more centrist than most.
  
  My guess is that Vermont's Republican primary will have a fairly low turnout and that Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, will finish on top.

If one of the candidates can win half of the states that are holding primaries or caucuses tomorrow, that candidate can claim to have won Super Tuesday.

But if no one wins more than three, it will be inconclusive.

In the Wake of the Tsunami

What wisdom can we take in the wake of "Tsunami Tuesday"?

Milliions of Americans voted in primaries and caucuses across the country on Tuesday. And neither party is 100% certain who its nominee will be.

So those who believed that everything would be settled before Valentine's Day are facing a different reality than the one they expected.

Republicans can be reasonably sure that John McCain will be at the top of their ticket. He has about 60% of the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, and even though the Republican Party awards most of its delegates on a winner-take-all or winner-take-most basis in most states, they are awarded proportionally in most of the states that are left.

So it just doesn't seem possible that Mitt Romney and/or Mike Huckabee can win in enough places and by margins that are large enough to deny McCain the nomination.

But McCain turns 72 in August. No one that old (who wasn't already the incumbent) has ever been nominated by a major party.

People worried about Ronald Reagan's age, and he didn't turn 70 until after he took the oath of office. (For that matter, Reagan hadn't had two bouts with cancer or spent several years of his youth as a prisoner of war, either.)

People worried about Dwight Eisenhower's age and he had just gotten into his 70s when he finished his second term in office. (He also had a history of heart attacks.)

Along with complaints about McCain's conservative credentials from Romney and Huckabee, we might also hear rumblings about how he's "too old."

Well, to misquote Forrest Gump, maybe "old is as old does."

On the other hand, when you consider McCain's age, his selection of a running mate must be assessed in terms that go beyond the potential to gain votes for the nominee. His running mate could very well become president.

As I've pointed out before, this country was in a pattern for well over a century in which the vice president became president about every 13 years due to the incumbent's death or resignation. That hasn't happened since 1974, when Gerald Ford became president upon Richard Nixon's resignation.

It's been more than 40 years since a president died in office. And he was assassinated. The last president who died of natural causes while still in office was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So, in historical terms, we're way overdue.

And if we elect a 72-year-old man president, it's entirely possible that he won't survive a four-year term -- or eight years in office, if he is re-elected in 2012.

Some people have suggested that Huckabee has remained in the race to strengthen his bargaining position for a spot on the ticket. If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate, be aware of the role vice presidents have played in our history and ask yourself if you want a potential commander-in-chief -- or pastor-in-chief?

Just something else to consider when you're deciding which candidate to support.

On the Democratic side, the race is still wide open. Hillary Clinton won nine primaries and caucuses, including the biggest ones (California and New York), and has 823 delegates pledged to her. Barack Obama won 13 contests and has 741 delegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate must have 2,025 delegates -- so both candidates are well short of the mark right now.

If Obama wants to be president, writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "he will still have to slay the dragon. And his dragon is the Clinton attack machine, which emerged Tuesday night, not invincible but breathing fire."

John Judis writes, in the New Republic, that all four of the leading Democrats and Republicans have their problems. It's hard to argue with that.

At this point, with voters in more than half of the states having voiced their opinions, we still don't know who the nominees will be.

Anticipating 'Tsunami Tuesday'

"Tsunami Tuesday" is so big, CNN is going to be covering it for 40 solid hours. Starting at 6 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday.

On the Democratic side, the unanswered question is, what will John Edwards' supporters do?

The assumption, before he actually withdrew from the race on Wednesday, was that Edwards' supporters would naturally gravitate to Barack Obama, since both candidates campaigned as agents of change -- and both painted Hillary Clinton as the agent of the establishment.

But when you examine the exit polls in the previous primary and caucus states, you find that the demographics that favored Edwards are demographics where Hillary has always had strong appeal. Edwards' voters are part of her natural base.

Another -- lesser -- recurring theme of Tuesday's primaries is, simply, "home." If it isn't the actual state of one's birth, it's a state where the candidate lived in the past or lives today.

There are four Republicans remaining in the race, and three have a "home" state casting its votes on Tuesday. There are, technically, three Democrats remaining, and each, including Mike Gravel of Alaska, has a "home" state voting.

Only Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas, does not have a "home" connection on Tuesday. Texas' primary will be held in March.

REPUBLICANS

In the GOP primaries, John McCain appears to be headed to victory in Alabama, American Samoa, his home state of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Mitt Romney gets the nod in his adopted home states of Massachusetts and Utah.

Mike Huckabee will be a factor in the South -- not just in his native Arkansas, either, although I do expect him to win there. It looks, for example, as if he will make a credible showing in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. And he might have a strong second-place finish in border states like Missouri and Oklahoma.

There are far fewer caucuses than primaries on Tuesday, but some states have chosen to take that approach to delegate selection. I think Romney's message favors him in the Colorado caucuses (where I think his support may exceed that of McCain and Huckabee combined). I pick McCain in the Alaska, Montana and North Dakota caucuses.

West Virginia's Republicans will be holding a convention on Tuesday to allocate their delegates. That's a dicier proposition, since we're not dealing with primary voters or caucus participants in that state, but I'm going to guess that it will be a two-way split between McCain and Huckabee. Romney could be a factor, but I think the other two will finish ahead of him.

DEMOCRATS

In the Democratic primaries, I believe Clinton will win her first adopted home state, Arkansas, and her current adopted home state, New York. But I think she will lose the state where she was born and raised, Illinois -- her opponent, Obama, represents that state in the Senate and I think he will receive more than 50% of its votes on Tuesday.

In addition to winning Arkansas and New York, I think Clinton will hang on to win in American Samoa, Arizona, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah.

The movement away from Clinton gives the edge to Obama in Connecticut. I think he will enjoy substantial victories in Georgia and Illinois.

Alabama looks like a tossup on the Democratic side. Based on the findings from earlier polls, the movement has been in Obama's favor.

So the question is whether he's reached his plateau or are there Clinton supporters who may yet be swayed to his side?

I think both Alabama and Missouri will go down to the wire on the Democratic side, so the fluidity of the vote in those states is crucial to determining the winner in each.

In the caucuses, I think it's too close to call in Colorado. I expect Clinton to win in the Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and North Dakota caucuses.

CALIFORNIA

I haven't mentioned California, to this point, because the state is so large and represents such a huge bloc of delegates in both parties that it is clearly the prize to win on Tuesday. And that means it deserves to be written about by itself, not lumped in with two dozen other states.

Yet from what I've heard -- from public and private sources -- the race is technically too close to call on both sides.

Bear in mind that there is a significant difference in how delegates are awarded in each party. Democrats will award California's delegates proportionally. Republicans will award them on a winner-take-all basis. So, in California (and other states, too), the Republicans will have three candidates on the ballot who will wind up spending millions of dollars between them and receive nothing for their investments.

On the Democratic side, I'm going to predict a narrow victory for Clinton, but I don't know if the division of the delegates will reflect that outcome.

On the Republican side, I'm going to predict that the endorsements last week from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will push McCain across the finish line just slightly ahead of Romney.

A wild card in the primaries is the weather. A winter storm is possible in northern California, which could suppress the turnout in places like San Francisco and Sacramento.

The Pacific Coast isn't the only area where weather could influence the outcome. Rain is expected in New York City. And snow is a possibility in the Northeast and the Rocky Mountain states. Even if it isn't snowing, it's probably going to be cold in many locations.

And another question is how the Latino voters will vote. That demographic was the key to Clinton's triumph in neighboring Nevada a couple of weeks back, and McClatchy Newspapers thinks Latinos could hold the key to success for the Democrats in California.

For that matter, as McClatchy observes, there are sizable Hispanic populations in other "Tsunami Tuesday" states as well -- Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And, given the racial tension that has existed between blacks and Hispanics for many years (along with the jockeying for position in the party that some journalists have alleged is occurring between the two ethnic groups), that might be a factor that favors Clinton.

In California, where I predict a narrow Clinton win, nearly 11 million residents are Hispanic, representing nearly one-third of the state's population. Blacks account for only 2 million residents, less than 7% of the population.

But the catch is that a far higher percentage of blacks actually vote in elections.

Hispanics, as the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, have the potential to influence the outcome of elections for a generation or more. But they have to participate in greater numbers than they have in recent years in order to wield that kind of influence.

MEDIA MUSINGS

With so many states voting in what amounts to a "national primary," it seems appropriate to take a look at what some of the editorial writers and political beat reporters across the country are saying.

Endorsements for Clinton

Buffalo News: "With President Bush’s record, any new president will represent change. The question is: Who will succeed in effecting it? In our estimation, the edge in the Democratic campaign decidedly goes to Clinton."

Cape Cod (Mass.) Times: "Senator Clinton has endured humiliation and contempt on a Shakespearean scale. Yet she is still standing, still committed to the civic goals she first set for herself at Wellesley. That should tell Democrats something about the inner strength she would bring to the job."

Denver Post: "Clinton's long record of public service has better prepared her to deal with two of this country's greatest challenges: the war in Iraq and the health insurance crisis."

Hartford Courant: "Voters who thought they were getting a fiscal conservative in George W. Bush must be profoundly disappointed. Mrs. Clinton's positions reflect the fiscal discipline her husband managed to effect in the 1990s."

Kansas City Star: "Some critics have focused on the mistakes of her husband’s administration. But if Sen. Clinton is to be held responsible for some of those mistakes -- which is appropriate -- she must also get credit for some of its successes."

Memphis Commercial Appeal: "There are few differences among Democratic candidates about how to improve the lives of Americans. ... Clinton, however, has the experience needed to step into the Oval Office at this critical time and get these jobs done."

New York Daily News: "Based on her experience and her service on behalf of New York, The News backs Hillary Clinton in the full expectation that from here on out she and her husband will abide by standards of fairness -- and, more important, that she intends to draw firm, clear lines should she make it to the White House."

New York Times: "As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign."

Endorsement for Huckabee

Rolla (Mo.) Daily News: "Huckabee has proven a politician with a religious conscience is not a detriment, but a good, solid attribute."

Endorsements for McCain

Buffalo News: "McCain ... has shown an ability to work across party lines to gain reforms in which he believes, and his steadiness would be a valuable quality in a president."

Cape Cod (Mass.) Times: "Honorable. Bipartisan. Experienced. Those are just some of the attributes that describe Sen. John McCain of Arizona. He has a strength of character that does not waver when the polls suggest that he should."

Chicago Tribune: "One Republican candidate for president dedicated himself to American honor, American duty, long before Sept. 11, 2001. The world of 2008 is the dangerous world John McCain unknowingly spent a military and political career preparing to confront."

Joplin (Mo.) Globe: "McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, is the only candidate with a consistent record and credibility on the war in Iraq. Although considered a maverick, he appears to be a unifier rather than a divider."

Juneau Empire: "McCain already has given decades of service to his country. He has shown a willingness to fight powerful interests for what he believes in and has shown he has the fortitude and experience to lead this country. He deserves the backing of Alaska Republicans ..."

Kansas City Star: "[McCain] has a very long track record of denouncing business as usual in Washington, which led us to endorse him in the 2000 GOP primary as well. He has been a tireless advocate of campaign finance reform and better ethics in government."

Knoxville (Tenn.) News: "A recent Wall Street Journal article identified McCain's Republicanism as more Theodore Roosevelt than George W. Bush. We think that, after the last eight years, a majority in the nation will be OK with that."

Los Angeles Times: "At a different moment in American history, we would hesitate to support a candidate for president whose social views so substantially departed from those we hold. But in this election, nothing less than America's standing in the world turns on the outcome. Given that, our choice for the Republican nominee in 2008 is sure and heartfelt."

Memphis Commercial Appeal: "Among McCain's opponents, Mitt Romney's business acumen and his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts make him an impressive candidate. On the balance, though, McCain seems to have more to offer. McCain seems to have a broader appeal among moderates and independents, which would be useful in uniting the country behind a set of common goals."

New York Post: "America is at war -- in Iraq and against a global Islamist terror network committed to the nation's destruction. McCain indisputably understands the nature of the threat, and what it will take to defeat it. And he will not flinch."

New York Times: "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. ... Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

Oakland Tribune: "McCain has demonstrated the experience, character and leadership needed for the presidency. He is not afraid to speak his mind on key issues, even if his ideas may be unpopular among some members of his own party."

Sacramento Bee: "McCain is a partisan Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. And, like T.R., he is not a prisoner of doctrinaire thinking or poisonous hyperpartisan politics."

Selma (Ala.) Times Journal: "McCain’s character is impeccable. He has demonstrated that strong character by standing against torture of prisoners of war, although he was tortured unmercifully as POW in Vietnam."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "[U]nlike any other candidate in the Republican field, Mr. McCain offers a chance to change the national discourse. He is a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater, a principled conservative, not a kleptocratic opportunist. "

Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News: "We disagree with McCain on many domestic issues and we were disappointed by his strong advocacy of an increased American presence in Iraq. Yet we believe that McCain is a level-headed man who would avoid entangling this country in future debacles overseas."

Endorsements for Obama

Chicago Sun-Times: "[T]his newspaper is endorsing a man because of how he makes us feel, the hope he evokes within us, the patriotism that he inspires in us and, most important, his ability to unite Americans, no matter their color, gender or social background."

Chicago Tribune: "Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation."

Joplin (Mo.) Globe: "Perhaps the greatest appeal of the senator from Illinois, other than a charismatic personality and sincerity in espousing his views, could be that he is being labeled the candidate of change. His Capra-esque campaign promotes the ideas of change and hope from a grassroots base. His is a fresh political voice."

Juneau Empire: "Many people question whether he has enough experience ... to lead the nation. But what would prepare a person for the hardest job in the world? Would an extra decade in the Senate serve to polish or tarnish? For a man so young to go so far shows that he can tackle the challenge of being president. Perhaps his newness represents a risk, but at least it's not the risk of sameness."

Knoxville (Tenn.) News: "Obama ... was challenged early in the campaign for his lack of experience in Washington, but he has deftly turned that criticism into an asset, pointing out that those who got us into war in Iraq and built the deficit had a wealth of political experience."

Los Angeles Times: "In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration."

New York Post: "Obama represents a fresh start. His opponent, and her husband, stand for deja vu all over again -- a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency. Does America really want to go through all that once again? It will -- if Sen. Clinton becomes president."

Oakland Tribune: "Obama has a rare combination of youthful optimism and mature sagacity that have made him a national leader and one who would be the best choice for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Rolla (Mo.) Daily News: "What Obama lacks in political experience, he makes up for in charisma."

Sacramento Bee: "Obama's lack of experience at the highest levels of government might lead to mistakes. But that risk is smaller, in our view, than the benefit of moving on from the Bushes and the Clintons, who have been in the White House for longer than some young voters have been alive."

Santa Fe New Mexican: "Hillary Clinton is only one of two outstanding candidates for the Democratic nomination, and The New Mexican endorses the other: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Shorter on experience, he also is unsullied by the quid-pro-quo world of Washington."

Selma (Ala.) Times Journal: "We haven't seen indications of Obama flip-flopping for the sake of political collateral. Instead, he has stuck to his beliefs in the face of harsh criticism. He has acknowledged his weaknesses. Obama has stood up for what he believes in, and he has reached across partisan political lines when necessary, despite his liberal ideology. These are marks of a leader ..."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Comets don't come around that often. In January of 1961, Ann Dunham Obama was six weeks pregnant with Barack Obama Sr.'s child when President Kennedy said at his inauguration that 'the torch has been passed to a new generation.' It's that time again."

Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News: "Obama ... continues to impress us with his magnetic leadership qualities. A brilliant and persuasive speaker, he is a unifier who is dedicated to breaking the Washington gridlock that most Americans detest."

Endorsements for Romney

Denver Post: "Romney is the best choice for Republicans because he possesses 'the executive acumen necessary to implement policies that produce results,' especially in the areas of health care and the economy."

Hartford Courant: "Mark Twain said about Wagner that his music 'is better than it sounds.' Mr. Romney is a better leader than his perplexing campaign performance makes him out to be. ... [I]f you throw him a knotty problem that needs to be solved by Friday, he's the candidate we'd bet on to have it done by Tuesday. "

General Political Writing

Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "When it came to one of the most important issues of our generation, Clinton made the wrong choice. Obama discerned the right course and had the courage to take it."

David Runciman, Boston Globe: "As the presidential primary season enters its critical phase, the air is thick with accusations and counter-accusations that the candidates don't practice what they preach. In what is now an inevitable feature of presidential politics, the leading contenders are desperate to pin on one another the toxic label of hypocrite."

Elizabeth Holmes, Wall Street Journal: "The Republican presidential campaigning rolls on this weekend, with Sen. John McCain working to make headway with the party's stalwarts and Mitt Romney facing renewed attention on his Mormon faith."

Greg Harton, Northwest Arkansas Times: "Parties ought to go back to closed primaries in which only registered Democrats get to vote for the Democratic nominee, and only registered Republicans get to do the same in their party's process."

Jim Tynen, Provo (Utah) Herald: "Barack Obama's rousing speech on Martin Luther King Day showed his potential to redeem America -- or wreck it."

Jim Wooten, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "John McCain presents a real dilemma for conservatives. ... With a Republican majority in Congress, he’d be a good successor to George W. Bush. With a Democratic majority, which is likely, he’s a crapshoot."

John Kass, Chicago Tribune: "If Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and is later elected president, her prospective First Laddie will dance into the White House. Only, Bill Clinton won't be elected this time. He'll be the spouse and therefore untouchable. And that's not only her problem; it's our problem, even if you're not a Democrat."

Kathleen Parker, The Oklahoman: "... [W]hat if Barack Obama were white? What if Hillary Clinton were a man? What if John McCain were a woman? What if Mitt Romney were a black female Baptist? The 'what if' question is useful across the board as voters wrestle with identity politics."

Maureen Dowd, New York Times: At Thursday's Democratic debate, "Suddenly, everyone was in the mood for love. Would the scream team turn into the dream team? ... How could Hollywood not fall in love with Hollywood’s favorite plot? After lots of sparking and sparring, the couple falls into each other’s arms in the last scene."

Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report: "Just shy of a month ago, after the first votes were cast in Iowa and New Hampshire, it seemed that the Republican Party faced a fluid and fractious nomination contest, while the Democrats faced a clear-cut choice between two not particularly adversarial candidates. What a difference a few weeks can make."

Mickey Hepner, Edmond (Okla.) Sun: "One of the most important traits of a great president is having good judgment. While Hillary may have more experience, it was Obama who showed the best judgment on the most important issue of our time -- the Iraq War."

Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune: "This newspaper will not declare its preference for president until October ... But it's not too early to voice admiration for much of what has unfolded to date in the presidential sweepstakes. Early state voters have narrowed both ... fields to produce two lively contests that bode well for positive change in Washington."

The Oklahoman: "... Super Tuesday's spate of caucuses and primaries ... will award more than 1,000 (Republican) convention delegates. McCain appears in good shape but must reach out to the most conservative Republicans to complete a broad GOP base."

Orange County Register: "Barack Obama benefits most from John Edwards' decision Wednesday to quit the race for the Democratic nomination, according OC Political Pulse's poll of seven interest groups in the county. ... However, many people said the eventual GOP nominee gains the most from Edwards dropping out, including 22% of independent and third-party voters ... [reflecting] an opinion that Edwards would be the Democrat most difficult to beat in November."

Paul Krugman, New York Times: "[John] Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

Salt Lake Tribune: "The Tribune has endorsed Romney and Clinton. On Tuesday it will be time for Utahns to make the only endorsements that really count, the ones that come from the ballot box."

Susan Eisenhower, Washington Post: "If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help."

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.

Who Are The Front Runners?

Adam Nagourney, in today's New York Times, points out that, on the Republican side, "three very different states -- with dissimilar electorates driven by distinctive sets of priorities -- have embraced three separate candidates" in the party's pursuit of a nominee to succeed George W. Bush.

Mitt Romney won the Michigan primary last night, capturing 39% of the vote. New Hampshire primary winner John McCain came in second with 30% and Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee was third with 16%. Romney's delegate total is now 36; McCain and Huckabee each have 19.

As a result, Nagourney concludes, "[T]his is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired." The coalition that was cobbled together by Ronald Reagan, and was held together for many years by Bush, has fractured, with elements scattering to different candidates.

The New York Post, in its blunt manner, asserts that "The GOP race has now descended into total chaos."

Is the situation any clearer on the Democratic side? Not really.

With the names of Barack Obama and John Edwards absent from the Michigan ballot, Hillary Clinton figured to cruise to an easy victory. And, while she staked out a lead and held onto it through the night, Clinton finished with only 55% of the vote. Michigan's Democrats who opted for an "uncommitted" slate of delegates numbered at 40%. A weak field, including Chris Dodd who dropped out of the race more than a week ago, accounted for the rest of the votes.

National polls show Clinton leading among Democrats, but the margin seems to be disputed. Reuters reports that Clinton and Obama are virtually tied nationally, with Clinton claiming 39% and Obama claiming 38%. The USA Today/Gallup Poll gives Clinton a wider lead, 45% to 33%.

Interestingly, despite all of the talk after the Iowa caucuses about a "movement" in Obama's direction, none of the major national surveys have shown him in the lead.

But, even with all the states that are holding primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5, states still vote individually, and polls are showing a statistical dead heat between Obama and Clinton in the next Democratic confrontation this weekend in Nevada's caucuses.

And South Carolina, which holds its Democratic primary a week from Saturday, is leaning to Obama, 38% to 33%, according to Rasmussen.

The only thing that seems clear to me at this point is that neither party is likely to have chosen its nominee by the time the dust settles on what is now being called "Tsunami Tuesday."

The Overlooked Wyoming Caucuses

Iowa held its caucuses two days ago, and New Hampshire holds its first-in-the-nation primaries on Tuesday. Wedged in between them -- and getting very little attention -- were today's Republican caucuses in Wyoming.

At 7:49 p.m. Central time, CNN reports that Mitt Romney swept Wyoming with 67%. His nearest rival? Fred Thompson with 25%.

Wyoming's Democrats hold their caucuses on March 8.

In the Aftermath of Iowa

Were you surprised that Barack Obama won in Iowa? Or that Mike Huckabee won on the Republican side?

Neither outcome really surprised me. The caucuses are held with different rules in Iowa, rules that seemed to favor each winning candidate.

For the Democrats, it seemed fairly obvious that money would be a key factor, so it appeared likely that one of the two best financed candidates, Obama and Hillary Clinton, would be at the top.

Things are done in a very public manner in caucuses. In Democratic caucuses, "viability" as a candidate is rewarded. If a candidate fails to get 15% support in a caucus' first round, that candidate is eliminated and his/her supporters are encouraged to line up with their second choice from among the surviving candidates.

For example, Candidate A receives 12% in the first round. Candidate B receives 27%, Candidate C receives 26%, Candidate D receives 24%, Candidate E receives 6%, and Candidate F receives 5%. Candidates A, E and F are eliminated and only Candidates B, C and D will be considered in the second round.

The supporters of A, E and F must choose a candidate to support in the second round. And their support will be critical, since they represent nearly a quarter of the vote in this hypothetical scenario.

The second vote is taken, and that outcome is what is reported.

Clinton's problem was that too few Democrats considered her to be their second choice. Hence, she lost some caucuses she might have won. The results suggest she was only able to hold on to her base in the caucuses, and that may indicate that Clinton has more of a problem with her well publicized "negatives" within her own party than her campaign has been willing to acknowledge.

If Clinton wins the nomination but can't build a coalition of Democrats, she isn't likely to win independents or make a dent among Republicans.

Obama reveled in the victory. "They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But ... at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do."

But, although the victory was significant for Obama, it is a sign of his inexperience in national politics that he doesn't appear to realize that winning tends to subject a candidate to renewed scrutiny. If he is perceived as the front-runner now, everything will be under a media microscope.

That's a lesson that Huckabee's campaign has been learning following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

But it remains to be seen if the Iowa caucuses mean anything. Caucus winners don't always win the nomination or the presidency.

Officially, on the Democratic side, Obama received 38%. John Edwards finished second with 30% and Clinton was third with 29%.

The Republican caucuses are similar, but there is no viability threshold. Republicans vote once and that outcome is what is reported. So it's closer in that regard to a primary. One gets a truer picture of the support for each candidate.

As was anticipated, the activist social conservatives turned out to support former Baptist minister Huckabee, who received 34%. Mitt Romney was second with 25%. Fred Thompson edged out John McCain for third; they both finished with about 13%.

Twenty years ago, another evangelist, Pat Robertson, made headlines by finishing second in the Iowa caucuses. Bob Dole won in Iowa that night, but Vice President George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Romney's campaign is wounded but it has little time to lick its wounds. In a few days, voters will go to the polls in New Hampshire, where McCain is perceived as a legitimate threat to Romney.

It was to be expected that each candidate would put the best spin possible on the outcome.

"The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won," Edwards proclaimed.

Acting more like a winner than the third-place finisher, Clinton told her supporters, "We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."

David Brooks, in The New York Times, calls the victories for Obama and Huckabee "the two earthquakes" that rippled through American politics last night.

"I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country," Brooks writes. "I’ve never been through an election night that brought two."

The Los Angeles Times suggested the Iowa results would help to "narrow the field," which seems to be happening. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd apparently are dropping out of the Democratic race.

New Hampshire's voters go to the polls on Tuesday.

Making Assumptions in Iowa

Everyone seems to be assuming things about the Iowa caucus, and no one seems to know exactly who's going to show up tomorrow night.

Maureen Dowd, in today's New York Times, seems to assume it will all come down to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side -- just barely acknowledging that there is a third candidate, John Edwards, who could finish first in the Hawkeye State.

"Should Hillary have skipped Iowa?" frets Roger Simon in The Politico, pondering an internal campaign memo in which it was recommended (unsuccessfully) that Clinton pull her resources from Iowa and devote them to other states.

Simon seems to feel Obama stands to be the beneficiary of the anti-Hillary, anti-Iraq activists who are likely to participate in the Democratic caucus. Iowa, he says, has always been one of Clinton's weakest states.

In the National Journal, Ronald Brownstein examines the campaigns being waged by the "big three" in Iowa.

Funny, isn't it? When Hillary Clinton's husband first sought the presidency in 1992, President Bush was considered invincible and the Democratic field was regarded as minute by comparison. The popular phrase for the 1992 Democrats was "the dwarves," and 16 years later, the top contenders are regarded as "the big three."

Robert Novak writes that Obama will win the Iowa Democratic caucus -- and Mitt Romney will win on the Republican side.

Novak has really gone out on a limb in both parties. He picks Clinton to finish third among the Democrats, and he picks Fred Thompson to finish third among the Republicans.

John Heilemann, in New York magazine, says Clinton has "lost her footing" in Iowa. Going negative is "considered dumb politics in Iowa, where the aversion to campaign bile is acute," he writes, going on to suggest that Clinton's campaign orchestrated things "to help Edwards win and deny Obama victory at all costs, including a third-place finish for herself."

A few months ago, things looked settled on the Democratic side. Now, it doesn't seem so sure, does it?

The Republicans needn't act smug. In the Washington Post, Dan Balz writes that Iowa is the "big test" for Mike Huckabee, whose poll numbers rose in meteoric fashion and then began to slide right after Christmas. And Huckabee has struggled on foreign policy since last week's assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, illegal immigration is the "hallmark" of the campaign. In a state like Iowa, where more than 90% of the population is white, it remains to be seen if immigration is a big issue. But terrorism -- and its alleged role in Bhutto's murder -- should be on the minds of voters tomorrow night.

If the Republicans are looking for things to take credit for, Bloomberg.com has a list of good economic news items from 2007 that nobody seems to be talking about. That's certainly something to ponder on the day that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time.

Although oil prices dipped back below $100/barrel, CNN reports that we should prepare ourselves for record gas prices and higher airfares. By the time the market begins to anticipate the summer driving season, $4/gallon gasoline could be a reality.

That's going to make a candidate's position on ethanol important not only in Iowa but in other parts of the country as well.

Fuel will be important in Iowa tomorrow for other reasons. It's going to be cold in Iowa, as it usually is on the third day of January. In Des Moines, for example, the forecast says it will be 26 and breezy during the day. But the caucuses are at night, and the forecast low for tomorrow night is 19 degrees with a wind chill around 10.

The hardiest activists will get out and participate. We'll see who else is motivated enough to brave the cold and the wind to participate in the caucuses.

A New Year, New Polls

Happy New Year!

It is, at last, 2008, and nearly every presidential candidate is spending today (and, I assume, tomorrow) in Iowa, where the presidential caucuses will be held on Thursday.

CNN/Opinion Research has released its latest poll from Iowa, and it shows that both parties are knotted up.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton leads with 33%, Barack Obama is second with 31% and John Edwards is third with 22%.

Since the last CNN/Opinion Research poll, Clinton and Obama have seen their numbers go up while Edwards' numbers have dropped.

"The survey suggests that for the Democrats, a three-way race may have effectively become a two-way race," CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times ponders the possibility that, when the dust settles on Thursday, all three of the leading Democrats will be tied up, essentially where they are today.

But turnout for Iowa's caucuses is traditionally low, and it remains to be seen whether those voters who expressed a preference for any of the Democrats will actively support their choice on Thursday.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads with 31%, and Mike Huckabee runs a close second with 28%.

With a margin of error of 5%, the results indicate a dead heat in both parties.

The Des Moines Register, which recently endorsed Clinton and John McCain, also released a new poll this week. Obama leads among the Democrats with 32% while Clinton has 25% and Edwards has 24%. Huckabee is the leader among the Republicans with 32% while Romney has 26% and McCain has 13%.

By the way, if you want to participate in the caucuses, the Des Moines Register is devoting a section of its website to a list of caucus locations, news and general information.

If you're going to participate, be sure to be informed!

And if, as a participant, "change" is your buzzword this year, you owe it to yourself to read Rich Lowry's article in the National Review. He examines what change means to several of the leading candidates.

Take Lowry's assessment with a pinch of salt, and have a Happy New Year!

A New Voting Bloc Gets Attention in Iowa

We've all heard about the influence the social conservatives are having on the Republican polls in Iowa. And we've heard about the influence they presumably will have when the caucuses are held in 11 days.

Now, CNN reports on another voting bloc that candidates need to be aware of -- the youth vote and the influence it could have on the Democratic side.

According to CNN, the top three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have been actively courting young voters in Iowa. The state's election law says people as young as 17 may participate in the caucuses if they will be 18 by the time the election is held in November. And people from out of state may participate if they are attending college in Iowa.

So the target group is larger -- and more diverse -- than you might expect in a state in which the population is more than 90% white.

But the drawback, as CNN observes, is that younger people haven't proven to be reliable caucus-goers in the past -- and the fact that the caucuses are being held when most colleges are still on winter break means the younger voters aren't centrally located, as they would be if classes were in session.

That makes it more difficult to do the things that can be done to get people out to participate. In some instances, the out-of-state students won't be in Iowa in time to attend the caucuses, and they can represent an important part of a candidate's equation.

Turnout rate among young voters hasn't been good in the past, but activists, including young activists, who spoke with CNN insist 2008 will be different.

We'll see.

Entering the Home Stretch in Iowa

As the races in Iowa near the finish lines, a friend of mine, who was in Des Moines on business this week, reports that everyone in Iowa has an opinion about what will happen in the Jan. 3 caucuses, but no one has any hard facts.

The latest poll of Democrats, from American Research Group, shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama, 29% to 25%, with John Edwards drawing 18%.

Mike Huckabee tops the Republicans with 28%. Astonishingly, the ARG survey shows John McCain running second with 20%. In most of the recent polls in Iowa, McCain has been registering in single digits.

But the numbers suggest that he has gained support as support has dropped for Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Romney was third with 17% and Rudy Giuliani was fourth with 13%. Thompson registered in single digits and those claiming to be undecided are at 11%.

E.J. Dionne writes in the Washington Post today that Huckabee scares the Republicans because he is an "evangelical populist."

Dionne points out that, in an endorsement of Romney, National Review fretted about the future of the conservative coalition that has been responsible for the Republican Party's successes in the last few decades.

Dionne suggests that the "crackup" that National Review fears already may have begun. The Pew Research Center identified two years ago a sub-group within the GOP, representing about one-third of its base, called "pro-government conservatives." These voters are religious and socially conservative, but they favor things that are not considered traditionally Republican, like more government involvement in regulation and more financial aid for feeding the poor.

"The faithful are restive," concludes Dionne, "tired of being used and no longer willing to do the bidding of a crowd that subordinates Main Street's values to Wall Street's interests."

As The New York Times observes, Romney is learning that “facts are stubborn things.” The Times refers to the assertion that Romney's father marched with Martin Luther King, well before the Mormon church reversed its racial discrimination policy. Turns out, that might not be quite true.

It will be interesting to watch the Republican race in the next several weeks.