Sanford I have fewer problems with not resigning, although I think he should save South Carolina the embarrassment. His attention is clearly divided at this point and he let down the voters by abandoning his post.

But Ensign fired his mistress’ husband from his staff and then continued to pursue her after the fact. Not only that, his parents bribed her to the tune of $96K.

I mean, come on…

But here’s the kicker…he’s going to run for reelection!

From Las Vegas Sun:

When asked Monday whether he had any thoughts about stepping down, Ensign said his supporters are sending one message: “They say, ‘Don’t.’ ”

“I fully plan on running for reelection,” Ensign said late Monday evening. “I’m going to work to earn their respect back.”

The two-term Republican senator was back on offense Monday, saying his support is coming from his fellow senators as well as those “on both sides” of Senate leadership.

Ensign said his supporters are telling him, “Keep your head up. This thing will pass.”

This is standard boilerplate when controversy pops up, so there’s no reason we should believe that Ensign is getting this advice from anybody but true believers. Still, if he runs in 2012 and wins? Well, I would be shocked.

You probably noticed that I didn’t write anything about John Ensign’s affair because it seemed like just another hypocrite doing what hypocrites do.

But when I read the following letter penned by one of Ensign’s former employees (as well as the husband of the woman Ensign pursued), I was moved enough to share it. You’ll find out why soon enough.

From Las Vegas Sun:

More than any time in my life I understand why people take matters into their own hands. I am disheartened! I have sought wise counsel, tried to do the right thing and continue to run into road blocks (sic) in dealing with a very terrible circumstance and injustice that lives in my life. I am hoping you and Fox News can help.

My name is Doug Hampton. I am a former employee of US (sic) Senator John Ensign. I worked for Senator Ensign in his official government office on Capitol Hill from November 2006 to April 2008. My responsibilities were the oversight of his personnel in Washington as well as the state of Nevada. Duties included budgets, policy and public speaking on behalf of the Senator and his initiatives.

Here is my story. In December of 2007 in the midst of some very difficult personal issues that deeply impacted my family and marriage, Senator Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with my wife. Our families were lifelong friends, our children attend school together to this day, and our homes are in neighborhoods across from each other. My wife was the Senator’s campaign treasurer.

There is a tremendous amount (sic) of details and critical facts associated with this story and their relationship that will not be addressed in this letter but are very important and need to be further explored if you choose to meet with me. The purpose of this letter is to establish the framework for discussion and provide enough information to warrant a meeting with you and Fox News. This is the only letter of its kind and no other news stations have been contacted with this information. I have great respect and affection for Fox News and many of your collages (sic). I’m sending this to you because you have a legal back ground (sic) and this story has several legal elements.

The unethical behavior and immoral choice of Senator Ensign has been confronted by me and others on a number of occasions over this past year. In fact one of the confrontations took place in February 2008 at his home in Washington DC (sic) with a group of his peers. One of the attendee’s (sic) was Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma as well as several other men who are close to the Senator. Senator Ensign’s conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April of 2008. I would like to say he stopped his heinous conduct and pursuit upon our leaving, but that was not the case and his actions did not subside until August of 2008.

The actions of Senator Ensign have ruined our lives and careers and left my family in shambles. We have lost significant income, suffered indescribable pain and emotional suffering. We find ourselves today with an overwhelming loss of relationships, career opportunities and hope for recovery. Our pursuit of justice continues to place me and my family in harm’s way as we fear for our well being (sic).

Today, Senator Ensign’s responsibility and stature have increased within the US (sic) Senate. His is currently the head of “Policy” for the Republican Party, the number four position within the Parties (sic) leadership team. We on the other hand are completely ruined and left to deal with the aftermath of very evil and completely unjustifiable acts by one of our countries (sic) top leaders.

It appears there may be nothing the law can do to correct and bring justice and restitution to (sic) this terrible wrong that has been done to us. I have sought a number of lawyers who are having difficulty finding charges that may hold up in court. There are either technicalities that exist due to the time period in which I have sought help, or other nuances that quite frankly make no sense to me given the egregious acts and blatant abuse of power by Senator Ensign. From my perspective this whole nightmare is terribly wrong and completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

I clearly understand this story is difficult to believe for anyone reading (sic) for the first time. I too would have difficulty believing it, if someone brought me this story. However I assure you it is true and there are facts, a paper trail, phone records and personal witnesses to testify to its truth. It is my belief we are dealing with a very powerful person and an institution in the US (sic) Senate that only the media can pierce to expose the wrong and bring light and focus to what needs to be done? (sic)

Please help me! This should not be how the leadership of our country should be allowed to behave. I need justice, help and restitution for what Senator Ensign has done to me and my family. Regardless of technicalities, regardless of position, regardless of power this cannot and should not be tolerated in our country from our trusted leaders. Will you help? Will you consider a meeting with me to further discuss this story and what can be done to bring justice and correction to this situation?

I love this country and considered it a great privilege to work in the US (sic) Senate. I am bringing this to you and Fox News to address this professionally and correctly. I could have sought the most liberal, Republican hating media to expose this story, but there are people’s lives at stake and justice is about proper process as well as outcome. Senator Ensign has no business serving in the US (sic) Senate anymore! I will send you and (sic) email as well as leave you and your staff messages in an attempt to meet you and your team as soon as possible. I live and work in Nevada but can be in New York within hours, I look forward to your help.

Sincerely,
Doug Hampton

What this guy did was pretty despicable, and now I think he should resign. And if Republicans are protecting him because of his stature within the party, well, they should stop immediately. Because like most hypocrites, it’ll only be a matter of time before he can’t help himself again and the GOP will have to deal with another one of these situations.

Be forewarned Republicans. If you let this one go it could seriously nail you later on.

From CNN:

Nevada is legalizing domestic partnerships, with the state Assembly voting Sunday evening to override a veto by the governor, officials said.

The Assembly voted 28-14 to override Gov. Jim Gibbons’ veto of a domestic partner bill, said Kathy Alden of the chief clerk’s office.

With the vote, Nevada will extend most of the rights given to married couples to couples in domestic partnerships, including those of the same sex. The bill will take effect on October 1.

The Nevada Senate overrode the the governor’s veto 14-7 on Saturday.

So that makes 4 states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine and Massachusetts) where gay couples either have the right to marry and 1 state where they have very similar rights.

After that, Vermont is set to legalize gay marriage soon, and New York and New Jersey are said to have similar legislation in the pipeline. And I’m betting that California will get something on the ballot and overturn the shame that is Prop 8.

Which states are up after that? Oregon? Washington? Maine?

note: Title fixed. Oops. :-(

Alone as the top bellwether state is the unconventional Nevada. Nevada has accurately predicted the winner in every election since 1912, except for 1976. In that election, Gerald Ford edged Jimmy Carter by 8,000 votes.

Of all states to be a bellwether, Nevada seems like an unlikely choice. Since 1990, its population has mushroomed from 1.2 million to 2.7 million. It is heavily urbanized, much above the national average. Prostitution is legal and Casino’s are the main industry.

How can a state like that have such an uncanny track record?

“We’re No. 1 because we’re not overwhelmingly partisan,” Eric Herzik, a University of Reno, political science professor said.

The formerly number one, Missouri now joins Ohio and New Mexico at picking the winner 23 out of the last 25 elections. Missouri also backed the wrong candidate in 1956 when it voted for Stevenson over Eisenhower. Ohio missed in 1944, choosing Dewey over Roosevelt and in 1960 with Nixon over Kennedy. New Mexico missed in 1976 along with Nevada and in 2000 by selecting Gore.

(from Foolocracy.com)

More “poll of polls” numbers suggest Obama could capture some reliably red states.

Nevada…

CNN’s new Nevada Poll of Polls shows Obama leading McCain by 6 points, 49% to 43%; CNN’s last Nevada Poll of Polls –- released October 31 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 7 points.

North Carolina…

Obama is leading McCain by 2 points, 49% to 47%; CNN’s last North Carolina Poll of Polls –- released October 31 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 4 points, 50 percent to 46 percent.

Ohio…

the Democratic nominee leading the Republican nominee by 4 points, 49% to 45%; CNN’s last Ohio Poll of Polls –- released October 31 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 5 points.

Earlier I said that any state where Obama was below 50% was a problem for him. However, in Nevada I think there’s an exception, especially because McCain is at 43%. I just don’t think it’s realistic that he’ll get a 7% swing.

But in Ohio and North Carolina? Well, if you’re an Obama fan, I wouldn’t count on either of those going blue this election. But the good news is that he doesn’t need them. Sure, it would be nice to run up the score, but a win is a win and Obama is focused on getting above 270 and that’s it.

More as it develops…

First, the Obama leads…

Florida: Obama +2
Obama: 47%
McCain: 45%

Virginia: Obama +3
Obama: 47%
McCain: 44%

Pennsylvania: Obama +4
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%

Nevada: Obama +4
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%

Colorado Obama +5
Obama: 49%
McCain: 44%

And then, the McCain leads…

Missouri: McCain +1
McCain: 47%
Obama: 46%

Ohio: McCain +2
McCain: 47%
Obama: 45%

North Carolina: McCain +3
McCain: 49%
Obama: 46%

And that’s it. These are the last polls from NBC before the election.

Good signs on the state level (.pdf), even if Obama’s numbers are slipping a bit nationally in the past couple days.

Colorado: Obama +9
Obama: 50%
McCain: 41%

Florida: Obama + 2
Obama: 45%
McCain: 43%

Nevada: Obama +12
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%

New Hampshire: Obama +18
Obama: 55%
McCain: 37%

North Carolina: Obama +2
Obama: 48%
McCain: 46%

Ohio: Obama +7
Obama: 48%
McCain: 41%

Pennsylvania: Obama +12
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%

Virginia: Obama + 7
Obama: 49%
McCain: 42%

My prediction? Any state where there’s a margin of 5 or less, he’ll lose. So that means Florida and North Carolina probably won’t turn out in Obama’s favor come election day. I really think undecideds will start to break 2 to 1 for McCain because they’re just nervous that Obama will tax the hell out of them.

And even though Obama leads by 7 in Ohio, I also have my doubts he’ll take it. I just don’t think there are enough early votes there to swing it.

But all the rest? Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are Obama’s.

What do you think?

The only good news here for McCain is that West Virginia is still in his corner. Still, that’s only a single digit lead and these are all states that Bush carried in 2004.

Nevada: +5 Obama
Obama 51%
McCain 46%

North Carolina: +4 Obama
Obama 51%
McCain 47%

Ohio: +4 Obama
Obama 50%
McCain 46%

Virginia: +10 Obama
Obama 54%
McCain 44%

West Virginia: +9 McCain
McCain 53%
Obama 44%

Earlier in the day I mentioned a factoid about North Carolina early voting favoring Dems over Repubs, 61% to 22%, so I think NC is very much in play. Also, I think Virginia is a lock for Obama. Nevada is getting close to being that too, but it’s probably going to be a squeaker that goes blue.

But Ohio? I just don’t think it’ll go blue this season. Not enough new voters there and early voting hasn’t turned out that well for the Dems. Also, West Virginia just isn’t close enough at this point for Obama to have the momentum to sweep through there.

Still, 3 out of 5 would really start turning this into landslide territory on November 4th.

More as it develops…

TIME has the numbers.

In Nevada and North Carolina it favors Obama…

Cumulative early-vote totals in the Las Vegas area show ballots were cast by 31,875 Democrats and 13,371 Republicans through midday Monday. Republicans had the advantage in absentee balloting, 6,616 to 6,161 through noon Monday.

In the Reno area, a similar pattern occurred twice as many Democrats than Republicans voted early through noon Monday. [...]

Early voting opened Thursday and drew some 214,000 voters to the polls in the first two days, leading to hours-long lines in parts of the state and lengthy schedules for poll workers.

In the first few days, the balloting clearly favored Democrats, with those registered with the party making up 62 percent of those who had voted. Only 22 percent of the voters had been registered Republicans.

In Florida, McCain has a big jump…

Republicans have requested 295,000 absentee ballots statewide compared with 199,000 Democrats.

And in Georgia it’s anybody’s guess since they don’t keep track of party affiliation, although reports do have African American turnout at 39% of early voting. That’s up from 22% in 2004.

Earlier I shared some electoral projections that hinted at an Obama blowout, and now I have two sets of swing state polls that provide even more good news for his camp.

The key here is that Obama has crossed the 50% threshold in most of these polls with just a little more than a month to go. That’s incredibly significant since, traditionally, once a candidate crosses that 50% line it’s hard for the challenger to make up enough ground to beat them. It’s certainly not impossible, but it’s one hell of an uphill battle.

First Quinnipiac shows big gains for Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania:

Florida: Obama 51%, McCain 43%

Ohio: Obama 50%, McCain 42%

Pennsylvania: Obama 54%, McCain 39%

Then CNN/TIME polling shows similar trends…

Florida: Obama 51%, McCain 47%

Minnesota: Obama 54%, McCain 43%

Missouri: Obama 49%, McCain 48%

Nevada: Obama 51%, McCain 47%

Virginia: Obama 53%, McCain 44%

Of note, McCain was never expected to win either Minnesota or Pennsylvania, but they have been closer this election season. Now they seem to be completely out of reach.

Also, a surprise Obama pickup could be Missouri, which was seen as a near gimme for McCain. So if the Illinois senator actually does capture the POTUS and wins the Show-Me state in a squeaker (as he did in the primaries against Hillary), Missouri will continue its streak of picking the right candidate in every single election in the past 100 years except for one.

It’s a very tight race in the “Silver State,” but I can’t help but think this could be an indication that the Obama campaign’s strategy to focus more attention on new states in this election cycle may actually work.

Here are the demographic breakdowns…

Voters age 18 to 34 preferred Obama by a wide margin, 55 percent to 31 percent. Among voters age 35 to 49, the two candidates were tied at 43 percent each. But McCain was preferred by voters 50 to 64, 48 percent to 39 percent, and by voters 65 and older, 50 percent to 34 percent.

No doubt 14% undecided could swing this either way, but as any pol worth their salt will tell you, when the party who has traditionally won a state year in and year out is below 45%, they’re looking at an uphill battle.

Still, all politics are local, so what could Obama offer Nevada that McCain could not?

Also this poll suggests that Clinton would not be a help to the ticket in this new swing state…

With five months until Election Day, a lot can and will happen, Coker noted. But the poll shows that the two candidates begin the general election season evenly matched in Nevada, a state that has voted for the winner of every presidential race with the exception of 1976.

The poll found that as far as Nevada voters are concerned, Obama appears to be better off without his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, on the ticket.

Asked what effect having Clinton as the Democratic vice presidential candidate would have on their vote, 19 percent of Nevadans said it would make them more likely to vote for Obama, while 28 percent said they would be less likely to vote for him. Fifty-one percent said it would have no effect.

More as it develops…

Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Then they realized that their previous statement sounded as if they could just shuffle around the delegates at will and give more to Hillary…so they backtracked…

“No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.

Long story short, Barack won the delegate count.

Just FYI.

(CNN) — The Obama campaign released a recording Saturday that they said was a last-minute negative robo-call received by a Nevada voter.

The call attacks the Illinois senator and emphasizes his little-used middle name, repeatedly referring to “Barack Hussein Obama.”

Here’s the audio of the call.

Let me state, for the record, that I don’t think any Dem candidate is behind this. They’d have too much to lose if it was connected back to them. No, it makes a lot more sense for some shadowy Republican groups to do this type of thing to a) get Hillary more votes because they want to face her in November and b) keep painting Barack as a hidden Muslim if he does get the nomination.

More as it develops…

Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday’s Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.

A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party’s projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.

So did Obama win or Hillary? Honestly, it’s pretty much a wash in the grand scheme of things, but I would venture to say that Obama did since he got more of the votes that really count. Definitely reminds me of the 2000 presidential election.

To me, this is yet another reason why we should simply get rid of all these rules and go to a popular vote across the board. Whoever gets more votes should win. Done and done.

However, This puts even MORE emphasis on who can win South Carolina, but really it’s all about Super Tuesday. The only issue there is if Hillary and Obama keep splitting these delegates so evenly, it’ll come down to the superdelegates, which appears to be a horribly flawed system.

More on that from OpEdNews:

Ends up that all the members of congress get a vote, DNC members get a vote– and that adds up to 796 superdelegates– about 20% of all the delegates available.

Here’s a link to a page that tells a whole lot about this, including listing who is committed to who.

So far, about 350 have committed to a candidate. That leaves 440 uncommitted– about 20% of the number of delegates needed to win.

Another fun fact…Bill Clinton is a superdelegate?

All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

So that means that Bill Clinton actually gets to cast a vote.

Basically, the closer it gets to the convention the less it becomes a democratic contest and more it becomes like an awards show?

And if it gets to a point where superdelegates have to decide, it could turn out to be poisonous for whoever does get the nomination. Can you imagine the fracture within the party? It would kill turnout in the general election.

Weird times ahead…

UPDATE:
So did he or didn’t he?

This from the Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby:

Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

I’ll translate that for you. Barack DID win more delegates and that will be proven out in April, but they don’t want to admit it now because it’ll make their caucus system look screwy.

So what explains these numbers?

DEMS VOTES
Hillary Clinton 5,317
Barack Obama 4,726
John Edwards 393

REPUBS VOTES
Mitt Romney 22,220
Ron Paul 5,681
John McCain 5,535
Mike Huckabee 3,450
Fred Thompson 3,333
Rudy Giuliani 1,878
Duncan Hunter 877

Ron Paul and John McCain got more votes than Hillary? Duncan Hunter got more votes than John Edwards?

Was Nevada really that unimportant for the Dems? Even with the Mormon vote pushing Romney to these massive numbers, that doesn’t explain wwhy Paul and McCain combined got more votes than all of the votes in the Dem contest.

Weird…

UPDATE:
Some people have said these were delegates numbers, not total votes. This makes A LOT more sense, but still…check out how MSNBC presents the totals…

Pretty misleading, eh?

UPDATE 2:
New York Times reports that the Dem turnout was a record…

State party officials said more than 107,000 Nevada voters attended the caucuses.

Again, this makes a lot more sense.

Sorry for any confusion.

Wow, he really is going all out for Hill.

On one hand it’s understandable considering the worldwide, historic embarrassment he put her through. On the other hand it’s just so damn tacky given the the suit that the state teacher’s union filed to keep the casino workers from caucusing in the hotels on the strip.

Here’s what he said…

There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying ‘if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.’ So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they’re better than you.

Here are the facts as Politico has seen so far:

And the Vegas papers haven’t found any evidence of the kind of straightforward voter suppression Clinton reports. The Obama campaign has suggested the Clinton campaign file formal complaints if it has evidence.

“This is ludicrous,” Culinary Workers political director Pilar Weiss told Politico. She said the union is “aware that some workers aren’t going to vote our way” and doesn’t engage in intimidation.

“The fact that they lost a lawsuit aimed at suppressing workers’ votes, and that now they’re trying to hold on to these baseless claims is ridiculous,” she said.

Weiss also said Clinton’s claim is “technically impossible.” Clinton supporters can ask union organizers — who are actively promoting Obama’s candidacy — to add their names to the lists of workers who will take time off to caucus today. But signs posted around the casinos advertise another avenue to get the time off: Workers can go around the union and ask their managers directly.

“We have found it shocking that President Clinton has gotten so engaged in promoting these accusations,” she said.

Oh, and one note…Hillary actually WON the vote on the strip.

And to think I actually missed Bill Clinton at one point…

Also, some good news for the Paulites today. They may just get some delegates after all! Presently, they’re leading McCain by a razor thin margin for second place. This has to be slightly embarrassing for McCain, but Paul supporters really focused heavily on Nevada and it looks like it paid off.

From MSNBC:

Mormons almost unanimously supported Mitt Romney in his easy victory Saturday in Nevada’s Republican presidential caucuses, a preliminary survey found.

Mormons comprised a quarter of those attending Nevada’s GOP caucuses, and more than nine in 10 were voting for Romney, according to early results from the survey conducted for The Associated Press and television networks. Romney is a Mormon, and his religion has been cited as a problem by some Republican voters.

A narrow majority of those identifying themselves as Republicans _ the bulk of the voters _ backed Romney. Two-thirds of independents favored Ron Paul but they made up only about 10 percent of GOP caucusgoers. Romney and Paul were the only Republican candidates to campaign much in Nevada.

66% of the independents voted for Paul? Wow, again, that’s a bad thing for McCain. One would think he would have at least split that with Paul.

But note to Paulites…you have been noticing that he does well with independents, right? He won them in Iowa and did well with them in New Hampshire, coming in a close second to McCain. Now he handily beat McCain in Nevada with the demographic, and I can’t help but wonder when all of you will realize that a 3rd party run is the ONLY way you’re going to keep his message going since it is now painfully apparent that there’s no chance he’ll get the GOP nomination. Folks, Republicans HATE him. Independents LOVE him. Get a clue already and push you candidate to do the only sensible thing he can do at this point. He is in a position of strength to break away from the GOP at this point. But he needs to do it soon because if Bloomberg decides to get in it, having a 4th candidate in the general election race wouldn’t really be the best to get your message out there.

Okay, I fully expect many of you to rip into me in the comments section, but I would really like to see a realistic strategy for winning the GOP nomination. Because I don’t see how he’ll ever do it.

This should be fun…

UPDATE:
Fox News really needs to get a life. Ron Paul was leading McCain, but they had Mike Huckabee up there instead?

I agree with the Paulites that some of the media outlets haven’t been too friendly to Paul, but Fox takes it to a new level. I still think they have the right to pick and choose what they want to report. Ultimately, Paulites will stop watching Fox News and they’ll lose money. It’s the free market in action. I’m sure Ron Paul would be proud!

Here’s how the vote broke down across demographics:

According to CBS News entrance polls, the economy was the issue most on the minds of Democratic caucus-goers today, ahead of health care and the war in Iraq. Nearly half of Democratic caucus-goers said the economy was their most important issue, while one in four cited health care and 22 percent cited the Iraq war.

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic voters said they were members of a union household. Fourty-three percent of union voters said they favored Clinton, while 42 percent favored Barack Obama and 11 percent favored John Edwards.

Obama won the support of voters under age 45, while Clinton won among older voters. Voters under age 45 broke for Obama over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, while those over 45 chose Clinton over Obama 54 percent to 33 percent.

More than half of women said backed Clinton in today’s caucuses, while men were more divided in their support, with 43 percent supporting Clinton and 42 percent supporting Obama.

Hispanics made up 14 percent of Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada today, and they overwhelmingly supported Clinton. She got 64 percent support from Hispanics, while Obama got 24 percent and Edwards got 9 percent.

Some good news for Obama? The female turnout was especially high this time and the youth vote was low. Still, he stuck close to Hillary, and that means this win may not really give her much of a bump in South Carolina.

The demos from CNN:

Another thing we can’t ignore here is that Edwards just got destroyed and I’m betting that something similar will happen in South Carolina. It really is a two person race now, and expect to see the attacks between Hill and Barack heat up as they try to stake their claim the bigger piece of the Democratic base pie.

Now the big question: who will Edwards endorse? I honestly can’t imagine him going with Hillary given how much he has talked about change…but you never know…

In any event, Mitt leads McCain by a wide margin, so it’s fairly likely that he’ll capture the contest.

First from Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Romney leads John McCain by 15 points, 34 percent to 19 percent. Giuliani, who led the last Review-Journal poll, is in sixth place.

On the Dem side, things are closer. Clinton is maintaining a small lead in the state, but Obama hasn’t gained any ground.

Clinton’s 9-point lead over Barack Obama, 41 percent to 32 percent, maintains the lead she’s held in most state polls despite Obama’s intense efforts to compete here and his recent union endorsements. John Edwards trails with 14 percent of the vote.

So what does Zogby have to say? Well, Hillary’s lead is a little smaller…

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a five-point lead in Nevada over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 42% to 37%. John Edwards is a distant third at 12% support, while 5% of voters remain undecided, a new telephone survey shows.

What these polls don’t reflect is the recently dismissed suit by the state teachers’ union which sought to disenfranchise fellow Democrat voters. So we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see if that had any effect on the caucuses. Something tells me it won’t.

From AP:

“State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules,” [U.S. District Court Judge James] Mahan said.

Nevada’s Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.

The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.

The suit contended party rules allowing the precincts gave too much power to the casino workers and violated federal equal protection guarantees.

But the judge said, “We aren’t voting here, we’re caucusing. That’s something that parties decide.”
He said it is “up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them.”

The Democratic National Committee ratified the state party’s rules in August.

Do note the “August” timeframe in that last sentence. These people have known since August, and they only filed after Barack got the Culinary Workers endorsement? If Hillary had gotten that union’s backing, would the State Teachers Union have filed the suit? Well, I think you know my opinion.

In the end, the Clintons would have done well to get out in front of this and challenge the lawsuit. It was so blatantly disenfranchising their own party’s voters, and I don’t understand how they could’ve miscalculated that. Now Nevadans are pissed at Hill’s campaign, which doesn’t bode well for her in Saturday’s contest. Not that she has been counting on a win in Nevada anyway, but if she loses there and then in South Carolina (which is likely), what will that do to her chances going into Super Tuesday?

We shall see…