As we all know by now, Sam Brownback exited the presidential contest late last week. And I guess I am behind the news cycle here, but I thought I'd offer some thoughts on his departure.

There is not much to say about Brownback's candidacy. Like a lot of presidential contenders - he thought he had an angle at the nomination. This is what induces the serious ones to get into the race. They see a way they can potentially win the nomination. But it is always an open question as to whether the angle ever materializes. Oftentimes it does not.

Brownback's angle was fairly obvious. He'd emphasize his cultural conservatism and his Midwestern roots, emphasize the family, do well in Iowa - and springboard from there. Unfortunately for him, it did not work out that way. Mike Huckabee's candidacy seemed to have robbed him of that angle. Huckabee always bested Brownback at the debates. And, of course, he came out ahead of Brownback at Ames, even though Brownback outspent him.

As of last week - Brownback was averaging about 4% in the polls in Iowa. And he is a non-entity in the New Hampshire polls. His angle was never going to materialize. He was right to leave.

So, here's the question I guess we're all asking: who benefits? David Yepsen had this to say:

A 27 percent front-runner [Mitt Romney] isn't much of a heavyweight. And last week's departure of Sam Brownback from the GOP race helps Mike Huckabee consolidate the votes of the GOP's social conservatives.

So do a little math. Add the 4 points Brownback had in that poll to the 12 percent Huckabee got, and the Arkansan is suddenly a 16-point contender in second place, ahead of Giuliani at 13 and only 9 points behind the stalled-out Romney.

I tend not to agree with this. Here's the problem. Right now, there are three viable contenders for the mantle of the social conservative: Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. These four points are going to be spread among these three candidates - and of course some of these voters will find their way over to Giuliani and McCain. This means that, in all likelihood, nobody benefits to any appreciable degree. And that makes sense. After all, if the Brownback vote was of any significant size - he would not be bowing out of the race!

The same goes for Brownback's fundraising totals. They were equally anemic. Now that he is out of the race - those donors are probably going to be divided up among the three social conservative candidates - though a lot of those donors might be Brownback-specific. More than 20% of his donations came from Kansas, and might therefore be part of Brownback's political network rather than from at-large Republican activists who are now going to contribute to another candidate.

I will say that it was time for Brownback to leave the race. I do not begrudge him for taking his shot. But it has been clear for a while that the angle he thought he would have was never going to emerge. Thus, the only thing he was doing was interrupting the flow of the debates (Note to Hunter and Tancredo: You are, too. Please leave!). As it stands right now, the race largely appears to be Giuliani versus three alternatives, each of whom wants to argue that he is the best bet for social conservatives: Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee. Meanwhile, McCain is hanging around in New Hampshire. He might be able to play spoiler, or take the whole thing for himself with a surprise win.

So where does that leave the state of the race? Who has the best shot? I have no stinkin' idea! The impression that the polls give me is the same impression I received from last night's debate: this thing is wide open. I think most people who watched the debate would conclude that the five major candidates - Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee - all performed reasonably well. What is more, they all conveyed different personas. Each of them thinks that what they are conveying might be what the public is looking for - and each of them might very well be right. In other words - like Brownback, each of these five candidates enters with an angle on the race. Unlike Brownback, their angles still may materialize.

Look at the current Real Clear Politics average. It tells the same story as last night's debate.

Giuliani: 27.6%
Thompson: 18.7%
Romney: 12.7%
McCain: 13.4%
Huckabee: 5.4%

Both Iowa and New Hampshire have numbers that are roughly similar - the only difference is in the order of the candidates. The bottom line: five candidates have non-negligible amounts of support, and no candidate has a commanding lead over any other candidate. Two other factors are of relevance. First, most voters still maintain that their minds may change. Second, the real campaign is just now beginning - as the campaigns are unloading the war chests they have been building.

This leads me to conclude that these numbers are unsustainable. What we are going to see - and we are going to see it relatively soon - is this field breaking in one or more directions. The question that we can't answer: to whom is it going to break?

This is why I think horse race analysis at this point is an exercise in futility. It is like trying to predict what a specific molecule in a volatile system will do at an given moment. There are simply too many factors to account for. I could see any one of these five candidates being the one at the top when the race is over. So, I would be wary of people who are willing to tell me what to expect. The fact of the matter is that the GOP primary battle has a lot in common with any highly complicated, multi-variable system. It is impossible to anticipate what will happen.

What that means is that we should stop trying to extrapolate from every little micro-event that only a handful of political junkies ever take notice of. Those tiny day-to-day happenings probably are not going to matter much because this thing is going to shift at some point - and the day after it shifts simply will not resemble the day before it shifts.

Right now, I see Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney as quite viable. I also see Huckabee able to shake things up with a big surprise in Iowa, or McCain able to do the same in New Hampshire. It is, I think, completely futile to try to assign probabilities to any specific outcome.

So, I think we should all sit tight - and see how this thing breaks.

We shouldn't have much longer to wait.