An interesting night in Florida has brought some much needed clarity to the Republican primary. Lets examine the implications...

First, McCain is now the strong favourite to win the nomination, and has finally shown that he can win without independents. He has not yet shown that he can without Mike Huckabee taking votes away from Mitt Romney, but he may not have to. Huckabee is clearly angling for the vice presidency (Vice President to a 72 year old President is a pretty appealing post for those with ambitions of the Presidency) and is likely to court favour with McCain and additional publicity by staying in the race.

Second, Giuliani's entire campaign strategy must go down as a collosal miscalculation. Funding shortfalls and a one-tone campaign message that involved referring to 9/11 whenever and wherever possible played their part in his demise. But the crucial problem was that his decision to sit out the first round of votes starved him of media coverage and . This inevitably started to erode his poll ratings in states such as Florida where he was once the front-runner. His declaration that the winner of Florida would win the nomination left him no alternative but to pull out after a humiliating third place.

Third, Mitt Romney is still a threat, and a well-funded threat, to John McCain. But, while Mike Huckabee stays in the race, he takes away socially conservative voters from McCain and complicates Romney's efforts to win. This is shown in the Florida exit polls - McCain won among those who seldom or never attend church, Romney won among those who attend monthly or weekly. However, among the 17% of the electorate who attend church more than once a week - Huckabee won - handing McCain a victory at Romney's expense.

On the democratic side, although Florida's delegates will not be seated at the convention, and neither candidate expended significant resources in the state, Hillary Clinton gained a boost from her win in Florida. Her victory speech gained good television coverage and, despite Barack Obama's best efforts, most voters are likely unaware that no delegates were at stake.

And with that, on to Super Tuesday!

Most of today's papers cover the results of the latest British Social Attitudes Survey.  The FT does the best job at summarising the findings:

"Britain is a country with more liberal views on marriage and family life, but less sympathy for the poor than it used to have – marked by a growing concern about the environment and a male population that thinks it does more of the housework despite the disbelief of its womenfolk." UK survey shows rise in liberal views - FT

There are virtually identical summaries in the Guardian and Times - whilst The Daily Mail focuses on what the survey says about women "A woman's place is in the office"

Generally the papers welcome the findings.  Only the Telegraph really decries the picture that is painted:

"[The survey] suggests that public opinion has been formed by media fashion and anti-marriage government policies: so much so that all the statistical evidence now in the public domain showing marriage to be by far the most stable and secure form of union in which to raise children is scarcely having an impact. Politicians who wish to change this perception are going to have to be braver and bolder in speaking the truth."

Good to see some parts of the right wing media are still able to lay the blame of all manner of British problems at the door of the left wing media.

Aspiring politicians wanting to get some free polling data on attitudes towards public services would also be well advised to dip into "Smells like public spirit" and "Hail to the halo effect" in The Guardian or "Public service ethos thrives amongst the young" in the FT.

Perhaps the most sage advice though comes from the Independent:

"You don't need a highly-trained social researcher to tell you what every woman can tell you for free: that men say one thing in talking principle and do something entirely different when it comes to practice." Unequal Rights - The Independent

In the aftermath of both parties' caucuses in Nevada, and the Republican primary in South Carolina, lets assess the state of the races.

Firstly, although Hillary Clinton won, this is not a major blow for Barack Obama. Due to the vagaries of the way in which delegates are assigned, he actually won more Nevada delegates than Clinton, and remains favourite to take South Carolina. He is ratcheting up his rhetoric effectively, yesterday accusing Bill Clinton of spreading misinformation about his record on the Iraq war and in the process highlighting voters' concerns about the role the former president is playing in his wife's campaign. If he can win in South Carolina, he will be in a healthy position going into Florida and on to Super Tuesday.

John Edwards, as predicted, seems to be fading into insignificance. He clearly wants to stay in the race until the convention, but his leverage as a kingmaker may be greatest if he withdraws now. If he is angling to be vice president, or (I think more likely) attorney general, he may be best served by getting out now.

On the Republican side, John McCain won a significant victory on the site of his most painful defeat eight years ago. But doubts remain. Among those identifying themselves as conservatives, McCain lost to Huckabee, 35 to 29 percent. McCain also lost Republican voters to Huckabee (Thompson and Romney took a combined 32 percent among Republicans). The Republican nominee will ultimately be chosen by rank-and-file Republicans: McCain has not yet demonstrated that he can win if the contest narrows to a one-on-one fight against someone attacking him from the right.

After his victory in Nevada, that someone looks most likely to be Mitt Romney. The political futures markets responded to his victory by putting him into second place for the first time since before the New Year. His personal wealth gives him a distinct advantage over the publicly funded McCain going into super Tuesday and he remains a factor in Florida. If Giuliani's vote continues to slide in Florida, Romney could yet secure a surprise win.

Two points of interest looking ahead towards November. Firstly, when McCain lost the 2000 South Carolina primary, he received 42 percent of the vote and around 237,000 votes. On Saturday McCain took 33 percent of the vote and 143,000 votes. This does not bode well for the Republicans in November. Secondly, both Clinton and Obama have been portraying themselves as the more electable candidate. The comments on this DailyKos diary  provide a very interesting discussion of the relative merits of each of their cases.

After the Republican primary in Michigan last night, lets take a quick look at the race as it stands.

Mitt Romney's campaign is revived. He has now won a state (by a convincing margin) and has the resources to be competitive in the Feb. 5th states. Until then, he is likely to sit out South Carolina, and focus on Nevada and Florida with the aim of gaining some momentum (and perhaps a win) before a big push on Super Tuesday.

It is also good news for Rudy Giuliani. We've mentioned before that Giuliani's strategy of waiting until Florida to jump into the race was predicated on no one candidate gaining unstoppable momentum before the sunshine state votes on Jan. 29th. The first three states have now produced 3 different winners, potentially allowing Giuliani the opportunity to leap ahead of a crowded field.

South Carolina is now looking crucial for John McCain. He has just lost in a state he won in 2000, and could do with a victory in a state he lost in that year. He will survive even if he loses, but a South Carolina victory will dispel doubts about his ability to win when independents aren't able to vote, and ensure that New Hampshire doesn't become an anomoly. Similarly, South Carolina is looking like Mike Huckabee's best chance to gain some momentum before February 5th. If he doesn't, he will have gone a month since his Iowa victory with little good news, and will be hard pressed to have much impact.

The real beneficiaries of last night, however, may be the Democrats. It was no coincidence that liberal guru Markos Moulitsas was trying to get Democrats out to vote for Romney in Michigan - the longer and messier the Republican race, and the more money the candidates have to spend attacking each other rather than Democrats, the better for the Democrats. The dream scenario for the Democrats is a Republican race which goes all the way to the convention.

And lastly, in a multi-media extravaganza, here's why the democrats are favourite to win this election:

Mitt Romey claims he saw his father march with Martin Luther King. Turns out it depends on your definition of 'saw'. And here he is in a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney gives his former views on abortion, Reagan, and struggles with a question about his greatest failing.

Here's Mike Huckabee being fooled into congratulating the Canadians on preserving their national igloo (though note his impressive weight loss since his days in Arkansas).

Lastly, here's Rudy Giuliani looking presidential with Donald Trump, and John McCain getting on board the 'straight talk express'.

As predicted yesterday, the more interesting coverage of Clegg's public services speech would come when the commentariat started to get their teeth into it. And today, Steve Richards does so.

Richards' argument is that all politicians seek local decision making, but that none of them have much of an answer to the question of how to do it. Although he credits Clegg with leaping 'ahead in the race', he raises various questions for him. Particularly, he asks:

how do we achieve local accountability when central government raises the money and has responsibility for overall standards?

Though Richards implies that Clegg doesn't have answers to these questions, I suspect that he does, or at least, is developing them. After all, Liberal Democrats have long called for a greater proportion of money to be raised locally. And while central government will still have responsibility for overall standards, if a more genuinely localised system raises standards overall, then any accountable central government ought to implement such a system.

Clearly there are political risks for Ministers in 'letting go' of some of the levers they cling to. But they may be less than the risks of continuing to defend the over-centralised public services which fail to deliver the quality of education or health that the electorate demands.

Further, in other areas, we are quite happy to devolve spending power. Richards says:

'(Clegg) would be acting irresponsibly to hand over the cash and say: "Spend it how you want"'.

But what are welfare payments if not handing over money to individuals and allowing them to spend it on what they want? What are tax credits? Of course, some people will spend the money on drugs, or alcohol, or some other non-state approved activity. But the question is, does such a system deliver better outcomes than one in which the government prescribes what that money should be spent on? If the answer is yes, there is nothing irresponsible about it.

Nick Clegg's first major speech this this weekend has gained significant coverage, and significant plaudits, including among the Tory press.  Echoing many of the themes in CentreForum's various education papers (a summary of which can be found here), his combination of a coherent and radical vision of supply side liberalisation alongside the minor but media friendly call to cull the bottom two GCSE pass grades seems to have been a popular one:

BBC: LibDems want parent-run schools

Guardian: Clegg prepares to end state intervention in schools

Spectator: Clegg steps up

Independent: Clegg to call for smaller state in first major speech

PA: Clegg in call to scrap low grades

Sunday Telegraph: Nick Clegg shifts to right

ePolitix: Clegg backs "diversity and choice"

Channel 4 News: Clegg makes first keynote speech

However, what will be more interesting is how the commentators will react, both on the left and right. Watch out for discussion as it filters into the consciousness of the commentariat.

One week after the Iowa caucuses, a few days after the extraordinary primary in New Hampshire, and with a short break before the next contests, it seems appropriate to assess where the candidates are in the race. Lets rank them!

Republicans:

5. Fred Thompson. Thompson's chance of winning the nomination is, barring a miracle, over. But he retains a crucial role in the race, for two reasons. He keeps socially conservative supporters (who distrust McCain, Giuliani and Romney) away from Mike Huckabee, which may prove critical in South Carolina. Secondly, when he drops out, he is likely to back John McCain, providing him with a potentially significant endorsement.

4. Rudy Giuliani. Given that Giuliani is focusing his pre-Feb 5th resources on Florida, Giuliani got his wish from the opening states - two different winners, and the prospect of a third in Michigan. If Giuliani can win in Florida, he will jump into the lead in terms of delegates, and will be back in the top tier. But his prospects of doing so are looking increasingly thin - his decision to eschew campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire is starving him of media coverage, and the Republican debate seems largely to be being conducted without him. 

3. Mike Huckabee. South Carolina looks likely to make or break Huckabee's candidacy, confirming whether or not he is a 'one state wonder'. Huckabee is desperately trying to turn South Carolina into a two horse race between him and McCain, and if manages to win, he could leapfrog McCain into the top spot. Nonetheless, Thompson presents a large stumbling block, and John McCain has the momentum.

2. Mitt Romney. Romney's strategy was to win in Iowa and New Hampshire by outspending all the other candidates, and ride a wave of momentum all the way to the nomination. That strategy is now dead. But Romney remains well funded (by himself if necessary), and if he can pick up a win in Michigan (where his father was Governor) or, less likely, Nevada (with a large block of Mormon voters) he can sink enough money into adverts in the Feb 5th states to remain a factor in this race.

1. John McCain. Dead in the water 5 months ago, John McCain is now the front runner. But he needs to prove he can win in states where independents are not allowed to vote for him. South Carolina all but ended his campaign in 2000 (after some particularly unpleasant push polling by the campaign of then-governor George W Bush). Regardless of what happens this time, McCain will survive beyond South Carolina. Nonethelss, a victory would put clear water between him and Huckabee and would be a major step towards the nomination.

Democrats

3. John Edwards. It no longer looks like Edwards has any hope of winning - his money is running out, and while he won South Carolina in 2004, he doesn't look likely to repeat the feat this time around. With his supporters increasingly likely to drift towards Obama and Clinton (probably fairly evenly), Edwards looks likely to fade into insignificance unless he makes a bold move and endorses one of the other two candidates.

2. Hillary Clinton. Clinton stunned the political world with her victory in New Hampshire, and her message against Obama is now sharpened and more effective - turning an 'experience' vs 'change' battle which played to Obama's strengths to a 'fighting for change' vs 'hoping for change' battle which plays to Clinton's. Nonetheless, her organisation and fundraising remain (slightly) behind Obama's in the upcoming states. Second, it is hard to assess whether the huge turnout by women in New Hampshire, and her massive margin over Obama among that group, will prove to be an anomoly or a precursor of things to come. Until we know more, I still place Obama in the lead...

1. Barack Obama. He would have liked to have won in New Hampshire, but he remains the narrow favourite in South Carolina (where half the electorate is African American) and Nevada (where he has the support of the Culinary Workers Union - the largest union, and one with an impressive ground operation, in a state which typically produces very low turnouts). John Kerry's endorsement is also significant for Obama, giving him, if nothing else, access to the biggest email list in Democratic politics - 3 million strong. Kerry proved in the 2006 mid-terms that this list is a lucrative one which can be mobilised to raise serious money, potentially proving critical heading into Feb 5th. Among the most coveted endorsements, Wes Clark went for Clinton, and Kerry has gone for Obama. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy remain the two biggest names on the sidelines...

Having all but called the New Hampshire Primary for Obama, The Independent is suitably contrite today (see 'Hold the front page' and indeed, the entirely appropriate front page.)

This may be a good time to check in with a site that we've respected and admired over many years at FreeThink.  electoral-vote.com is a comprehensive guide to polling in the US focusing on votes at a state level, which is after all, where the votes are counted.

Of course, like The Independent, electoral-vote.com relies on the accuracy of opinion pollsters. It was therefore as surprised at the win as anyone.

Delving into the state-by-state detail is fascinating though - and reveals the strength of Clinton's position. Many of the polls that electoral-vote.com is based on are now out of date - especially for the states that don't poll in the next fortnight.  The commanding lead Hillary seems to have across most of the Country looks pretty unassailibe - especially in the light of the New Hampstead result.  Unless the pollsters are simply getting 1st and 2nd place confused every time Obama is going to have a very tough time to get past the former first lady.

Well, my predictions turned out partly right and partly wrong...but lets look at who the winners and losers from the night are...

WINNERS

Rudy Giuliani: In dealing a body blow to Mitt Romney's campaign, Iowans have done Rudy Giuliani, who did not bother to compete in Iowa, a massive favour. If Romney fails in New Hampshire, Giuliani will have got rid of one of his best funded and most credible opponents without having lifted a finger.

John McCain: Despite not campaigning in Iowa and looking dead in the water a few months ago, McCain has rebounded to win a very credible 4th place and momentum taking him into New Hampshire. Ideally, he would have forced Fred Thompson out of the race (there were rumours prior to Iowa that Thompson would drop out and back McCain). Nonetheless, McCain now has a real possibility of victory in New Hampshire, where he won in 2000 and where he has a strong base of support among independents. If he does, he is back in the centre of the race and in a strong position going into South Carolina. 

Mike Huckabee: Five months ago, Huckabee looked likely to be an also-ran. He is now in the very centre of the race. Nonetheless, whether he can carry less evangelical states than Iowa remains unknown. Further, it is hard to imagine any of the Democrats being overly concerned at facing off against a foreign policy gaffe prone pastor who firmly believes he ain't descended from no monkey.

Mike Bloomberg: If any nominees from the top tier of candidates gave Mike Bloomberg an opportunity to get into the race; it would be Obama and Huckabee. If they come out as the nominees, it leaves a big gap for a fiscally conservative and socially liberal pragmatist. And if Bloomberg gets in, it blows the entire race open.

The Democrats: The Republicans are in trouble in November if the relative turn-outs are anything to go by. More than 230,000 democrats caucused in Iowa, double the number of Republicans that did so, and double the number of democrats who caucused in 2004. There has been a significant energy (and financial deficit) between the two parties since about 2005, and all indications are that the gap is widening.

LOSERS

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney's strategy, to sink overwhelming resources into victories in the early states, in the hope that that would give him momentum going into 'tsunami tuesday' on Feb 5th, have been dealt a massive blow. He probably now needs to win New Hampshire to stay in the race, but McCain is resurgent there and could well win. If he does, it's all but over for Romney.

John Edwards: Edwards staked everything on Iowa, where his strong union support gave him organisational muscle. The gamble failed. A narrow second place doesn't give him any additional momentum, and he lacks the funds to effectively compete against Clinton and Obama once the number of states in play starts to widen. Iowa was his best chance to win a state, and he didn't.

Hillary Clinton: Iowa was always a tough state for Clinton to crack, and in the early stages of her campaign many of her advisors were rumoured to have told her to skip it. She didn't and ended up in third. With Edwards unlikely to have much impact and Dodd and Biden out of the contest, New Hampshire is now a two horse race. If Obama wins it, his momentum could well prove unstoppable.

Tonight in sub-zero Iowa, the first voters will begin determining the Democratic and Republican nominees for President. Although Iowa has relatively few delegates to send to the nominating conventions, its significance is enormous: both because it is the first chance for voters to pass judgement on the candidates, and because it will lead into 5 days of solid media coverage and fundraising opportunities before the New Hampshire primary. Momentum, in a crowded primary season, is everything.

For the Democrats, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both been up and down in various polls over the last fortnight, while John Edwards' union support gives him an organisational ability which should not be discounted. But what may prove the difference is Dennis Kucinich's decision to tell his supporters to caucus for Obama in areas where he does not get the necessary 15 per cent to stay in the contest. My prediction: Barack Obama to shade it in what is essentially a three way tie with Clinton and Edwards, with Joe Biden in a surprisingly strong 4th place.

For the Republicans, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the only names likely to win in Iowa - the other candidates long since gave up any serious hope of winning. John McCain and the quixotic Ron Paul are focused on New Hampshire, Giuliani on Florida, while Fred Thompson doesn't seem focused on very much at all. My prediction: Mitt Romney's superior and better funded ground operation, along with the barrage of negative attack ads which Mike Huckabee has been subjected to in recent weeks, will give Romney the edge.

Nonetheless, predictions in Iowa often go the way of warm toes. This is a poll from just before the democratic caucus in 2004, which John Kerry ended up winning, with John Edwards in second place.

20% Howard Dean
13% Wesley Clark
8% Joe Lieberman
7% Dick Gephardt
7% John Kerry
4% Carol Moseley Braun
4% John Edwards 

In short, it's anyone's game...