Democrats in Nevada

How did Hillary Clinton win Nevada? We'll look at the Nevada entrance polls to get a sense. Note that these show a slightly larger margin of victory than the results you have seen on television and the Internet. There are three reasons. First, the published results are really counts of delegates to the state convention. The Nevada Democratic Party is not releasing actual vote counts. Second, there was a 15% viability threshold that might have influenced delegate counts; for instance, caucus goers who came to vote for John Edwards might not have had a chance to win their guy some delegates. Third, the entrance poll is exactly that - a poll. It has a margin of error just like any other.

With these caveats, there are some interesting observations we can make about the Nevada results. Generally, Clinton won in Nevada because she retained the voting coalition that she formed in New Hampshire.

Consider:

- Once again, Clinton carried a strong majority of female voters, who also constituted an overwhelming majority of caucus-goers. She won them 51% to 38%, and they made up 59% of the vote. This basically mimics her success in New Hampshire.

- She expanded her lead among Catholic voters. In New Hampshire, she won them by 17 points. In Nevada, she won them by 27 points. In Nevada as in New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton split Protestants.

- She won voters who consider the economy their top concern by 9 points in both Nevada and New Hampshire. She once again won a solid victory among voters who make less than $50,000. In New Hampshire, it was by 15 points. In Nevada, it was by 12 points.

As she won the vote by a larger margin in Nevada than she did in New Hampshire - it stands to reason that she expanded upon this basic voting coalition. Indeed, she did. Here is how:

- She cut into Obama's share of the male vote. Obama defeated Clinton among men by 11 points in New Hampshire. In Nevada, he beat her by just 2 points.

- She did well among Hispanic voters, winning them by 38 points. But Obama won African Americans by 69 points. Interestingly, Hispanics and African Americans both constituted 15% of entrance poll respondents. So, Clinton's win among Hispanics was more than matched by Obama's win among African Americans.

- Older voters seemed to have comprised a larger share of the vote in Nevada, and Clinton won them by a larger margin than she did in the Granite State. Voters 60 and older were 36% of the electorate in Nevada, and Clinton won them by 29 points. In New Hampshire, voters 65 and older made up 13% of the vote, and Clinton won them by 16 points.

- Clinton won a much larger share of white voters. In New Hampshire, she won them by just 3 points. In Nevada, she won them by 18 points.

- Clinton improved her totals among voters who make more than $50,000 per year. Obama won them by 5 points in New Hampshire; Clinton won them by 5 points in Nevada.

Once again, it appears that Hillary Clinton won by turning out a traditional Democratic voting coalition: Catholics, women, and "downscale" Democrats. This time, she added to this coalition with strong showings among Hispanics, whites, men, and "upscale" voters.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that Obama is able to take a solid portion of the core Democratic vote - notably African Americans. This is good news for Obama in the short term. If you take these demographic preferences to South Carolina, Obama will probably win because each group's share of the vote shifts. For instance, Hispanics are not a major factor in South Carolina, and African Americans are a much greater factor. This alone would probably yield Obama a victory next week.

But in the long run, my feeling is that a replication of Nevada's result would give Clinton great success on Super Tuesday. The real concern for Obama should be the shift of white voters to Clinton. It remains to be seen whether this is sustainable (we saw nothing like this in Iowa or New Hampshire). If it is, Obama is in real trouble.

Final point. I mentioned in my write-up of the New Hampshire results that we do not yet have a handle on union voters. They broke for Clinton in New Hampshire, but they split equally between Clinton and Obama in Iowa. Nevada reflects the Iowa results. Clinton won voters from union households by 9 points in New Hampshire. She won them by just a point in Nevada. Much of the difference here surely has to do with Obama's endorsements from big Nevada unions - but that is precisely the point: we don't know whether, or even if, union voters are going to break one way or the other on Super Tuesday.

Republicans in South Carolina

If demography has been key in the Democratic races, ideology seems to be the difference maker in the Republican contests. This should come as no surprise, given that the differences among Democrats have been tonal and the differences among Republicans have been issue-based.

How did McCain win? Simple. He did exactly what he did in New Hampshire. Namely:

- He won a big victory among voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. In South Carolina, he won them by 13 points over Huckabee. In New Hampshire, he won them by 14 points over Romney.

- He put together a coalition of moderate and slightly conservative voters. He won moderates by 30 points in South Carolina, and by 17 points in New Hampshire. He won those who call themselves "somewhat conservative" by 2 points in South Carolina, and by 3 points in New Hampshire. Huckabee won those who are "very conservative" by 22 points in South Carolina; Romney won them by 25 points in New Hampshire.

- He split self-identified Republicans with Huckabee. He won 31%, Huckabee won 32%. In New Hampshire, the results were basically identical. Romney won 35%, McCain won 34%.

- He won self-identified Independents by 17 points in South Carolina. In New Hampshire, he won them by 13 points.

Huckabee's strength was clearly among self-identified evangelicals. They made up 55% of the electorate, and he won them by 16 points. Unfortunately for him, he lost non-evangelicals by 25 points. He actually finished fourth among non-evangelicals, behind Romney and Thompson (though the differences among the three are statistically insignificant). This is a sign that Huckabee's campaign has not successfully expanded beyond the core voters that it first wooed in Iowa. The following was a telling indicator of that. Despite the fact that Huckabee has run on a "populist" message, he and McCain split voters who identify the economy as their biggest concern, 32% to 32%.

Another point. It is hard to argue that a more vigorous campaign by Romney would have stopped McCain. It appears that Huckabee took over the position Romney had in New Hampshire with strong conservatives and Bush administration approvers. As a matter of fact, Huckabee's loss was probably due in part to the fact that Thompson was in the race. Thompson did relatively well among those who support Bush and among the "strong conservatives." Adding another candidate who makes the same appeal probably would have only helped McCain.

What we thus have in the Republican Party is the makings of a plurality coalition in which a prominent portion - namely, strong conservatives - is not fully a part. McCain has managed to win twice even though he has not won over strong conservatives. Can this continue? I am not sure - though I surely think South Carolina's confirmation of the New Hampshire vote strengthens his hand.

It will be interesting to see how high-profile conservative leaders react. I am sure they will not take this victory as the end of the race. They can hang their hats on this: if there had been a single "conservative" candidate in South Carolina, he might have defeated McCain. There was a split between McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson among "very conservative" voters. If there had been just a single "conservative" candidate to oppose him - McCain might have lost.