The Guardian reports on Rudy's strategy of foregoing the early states to focus on Florida.

Shorter version: Rudy's last stand.

My take: A loss in Florida will be a body blow. But Tsunami Tuesday, with California, New York, New Jersey and others still count. Don't underestimate him and don't over-estimate McCain. Rudy still needs defeating. Ignoring him or dismissing him is not the right strategy. It's what he's hoping for, that while others see him as laying low in the weeds and stop paying attention, he's been making gains pounding the pavement in Florida with a ten day advantage over his rivals.

Will it work? Hopefully not. But it's not over yet. From the Guardian: [More...]

From all the disparate reports about delegates tonight, I can see I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how the caucus and primary votes translate into delegates locally and then at the national level.

I just came across this article by L. Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College. I have no idea if he's correct or not, but he sounds authoritative. He describes the process for Democrats as follows:

The Democrats allocate delegates in proportion to the vote a candidate receives in a primary or caucus. If Obama gets 60 percent of the votes in a state with 100 delegates, he would get 60 delegates, and the other candidates -- those who surpass a threshold of 15 percent -- will receive the rest, divided according to their vote totals. The strategic implication of this rule is that a candidate should not desert a state simply because he or she will not win it. That candidate still will pick up valuable delegates. Thus, Obama is campaigning in New York and New Jersey and Clinton in Illinois.

On Tsunami Tuesday and superdelegates: [More...]

I hope we all can see now how horribly undemocratic the Iowa Caucus system (used today in Nevada) is. Frankly it is so undemocratic that it makes a mockery of the histrionic hue and cry we are seeing in some precincts.

Barack Obama and his supporters spent a week, rightly in my opinion, decrying attempts to change the rules at the last moment for the Nevada caucus. But he makes a mockery of that complaint when he celebrates the most outrageous form of voter disenfranchisement - the delegate awarding system. Chris Cilizza explains:

The disparity between the raw vote total and the delegate apportionment is centered on the fact that Obama beat Clinton in the state's sparsely-populated northern reaches and more rural areas -- a statewide showing that left him with a narrow delegate victory if not a popular majority.

In simpler English, the votes in the more populous regions of Nevada were given LESS WEIGHT than votes in less populated regions. In case someone needs a history lesson, this was the issue in the famous "one person, one vote" case - Baker v. Carr, which led to Gray v. Sanders still the most important voting rights case that I can remember.

More . . .

Mike Huckabee gave a very gracious speech after the South Carolina Republican primary was called for John McCain.

I've read a lot of comments wanting McCain to lose in S.C. because he'd be tougher for a Democrat to beat.

I disagree. I don't think the S.C. results means McCain will win the Republican nomination. McCain will face a tough battle in Florida and tougher ones on Feb. 5. If Huckabee and Romney aren't considered serious contenders by then, it will be McCain and Giuliani. I think Republicans will choose Rudy.

The last thing I want is for Giuliani to have a viable shot at the Presidency. He could be a far a more difficult ultimate opponent than McCain.

My prediction: McCain's lead won't last. He's too old and the polar opposite of change that is so important to voters. The Tsunami states of Feb. 5 won't go for him.

I'm hoping Huckabee and Romney do well in Florida and on Feb. 5. Anybody but Rudy.

It looks like McCain, based on exit polls, which is bad news for Dems. He clearly would be the toughest to beat. Actual results here. Comment on South Carolina or other topics if you wish.

Bump and Update: A Democratic party official disputes Obama's claim he won more delegates. National delegates from Nevada won't be decided for months. The Washington Post has a similar report.

****

The AP has the newest delegate count after the Nevada caucus results.

Clinton won 13 delegates in Nevada on Saturday, compared to 12 for Obama, an AP analysis of caucus results showed. All of Nevada's 25 Democratic delegates have been awarded.

Clinton leads the overall race for delegates with 237, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. She is followed by Obama with 135 and former Sen. John Edwards with 50. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Update: CNN just read a statement from Barack Obama saying he has more delegates than Hillary Clinton. Maybe he's not counting the Superdelegates? If so, that's a big mistake. They are there and they count. [More...]

This is too stupid for words:

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. . . . Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory . . .

So Obama is trumpeting LOSING by 6 points while spending the week crying about voter disenfranchisement? The Democratic voters of Nevada clearly chose Clinton and Obama is celebrating that the intent of the voters may be thwarted by these atrocious caucus rules?

This is pathetic, insulting and ridiculous. Shame on the Obama campaign for this.

Kevin Drum effectively eviscerates a curious defense of Barack Obama's vision of postpartisanshp by historian Joseph Ellis. Kevin quotes Ellis and then comments:

Let the argument about the viability and practicality of Obama's major message go forward. But as it does, even his critics need to acknowledge that he is not a weird historical aberration. His message has roots in our deepest political traditions. Indeed, it is in accord with the most heartfelt and cherished version of our original intentions as a people and a nation.

Consider it acknowledged. But this sure seems like a backward argument to me. If even the brilliant, farsighted political visionaries who wrote the constitution and founded our country were unable to keep to their nonfactional ways for more than a few months, what does that say about the death grip that partisanship has on human politics? And what, in turn, does that have to say about Obama's apparent belief that he can overcome it?

(Emphasis supplied.) It says that Obama is either faking it, which I fervently wish, or he is a fool. The problem with even faking it of course is that it is a disastrous political strategy and disastrous for a progressive agenda. I truly hope that this Nevada result will wake him up and make him abandon Axelrod's postpartisan nonsense and really try to be an advocate for a Democratic progressive agenda.

While Chris Bowers reaches for a union based explanation of Hillary's win in Nevada, the entrance polls clearly tell a different story -- it was Democrats, women and Latinos who gave Hillary the win.

Democrats went 51-39 for Clinton over Obama. Obama won independents by 47-33.

Women went for Clinton by 51-39 over Obama. Men split 47-45 for Obama.

Latinos went 64-26 for Clinton. Whites went 52-34 for Clinton. African Americans went 84-16 for Obama.

Obama is likely to score a big win in South Carolina based on his dominance of the African American vote. But he has significant troubles down the road if he can not do better with Democrats, women and Latinos.

CNN calls Nevada for Hillary Clinton. And, she won the majority of the at-large caucuses on the Las Vegas strip, despite the culinary workers endorsement.

Clinton has carried at sites in the Flamingo, the Rio, Paris Las Vegas, the Bellagio, and Wynn Las Vegas. Only the site at Caesars has gone for Obama so far. First vote at the Mirage was 178 for Clinton and 153 for Obama and 3 for Edwards and three uncommitted. So on second round, that site, too, apparently will go for Clinton. The Luxor site is closely divided and voting again. No word from New York New York.

Update: Harry Reid was right. Caucus turnout exceeded 100,000. Final at-large strip caucus tally: Hillary wins 7, Obama 2. With 91% of vote in, it's Hillary 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%. In Clark County, it's Hillary 55%, Obama 44%.

Update: Hillary has won 7 of 9 of the strip caucuses.

Update: 81% of vote in, Hillary has 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%. CNN says African American voters went overwhelmingly for Obama, Latino voters went huge for Hillary. Obama won younger vote, Hillary won older voters and women voters. John King needs to wake up. He just called Hillary's win "close." It's not close, it's just not as big a margin as the polls gave her a few months ago. [More...]

Update: 1:17pm Hillary wins Nevada -- and takes the Las Vegas strip.

Update: 1:05 pm PT: Hillary wins the Bellagio and the Tropicana caucuses. She has four of nine of the at-large caucuses so far.

Update: 1:00pm PT 60% of precincts reporting and Hillary leads Obama 50% to 45%. Interestingly, with 58% of Clark County in, Hillary is leading Obama 55% to 42%.

Update: 12:51 pm PT Obama has left Las Vegas for Chicago. He won't be making any remarks. I'd say that means he doesn't expect to win. 25% of precincts are in and Hillary is leading but not enough votes in yet to call the race.

More below:

Bump and Update: ABC had Ron Paul beating John McCain. Now they say McCain is in second place.

The Republicans started their caucuses two hours earlier than Democrats.

Fox News and NBC have projected Mitt Romney the winner.

Update: NBC has McCain second and Ron Paul third. CNN has them tied right now.