Setting the table for Super Tuesday.

The Republicans. It is now a two-man race with Huckabee hanging on for one of three (and not mutually exclusive) reasons: 1) in hopes of a miracle comeback, 2) in hopes of being the veep, or 3) for strategic reasons to help his preferred nominee, which one presumes at this point is McCain (and therefore could also be linked to reason #2).¹

Paul persists because he has the money to do so and has a message he wants to spread.

A quick run-down:

• McCain: Given that he is leading in the polls in places like NY and CA, one has to assume that McCain is the clear front runner as he emerges from Florida with a victory (and he is the delegate leader at the moment).
• Romney: Are we seeing the “Stop Romney” coalition emerging with McC and Rudy? So it would seem. And while it is clear that many in the party (e.g., the Rush Limbaugh’s, Hugh Hewitt’s and many at NRO’s The Corner) may lament that fact, the bottom line is that Romney now has an uphill battle to face.
• Huckabee: See above.
• Giuliani: The word is, as I noted last night, that Giuliani is to Drop Out and Endorse McCain. Certainly in last night’s speech Rudy sounded like a man who knew he was done, speaking of his campaign in the past tense. I think the McCain endorsement is a logical move as one suspects that most Giuliani voters would more likely go to McCain rather than Romney. One suspects as well that Rudy is hoping for a cabinet position in a potential McCain administration. I must confess, AG Giuliani or DHS Secretary Giuliani is not an outcome that I relish.
• Paul: The most interesting thing about Paul is that he represents a clear ideological position and he was able to raise large amounts of money to fuel a nationwide tour to display those ideas. Is this a new phenomenon in the era of the internet and narrowcasting to raise funds, or just Paul-specific? One could argue that Howard Dean was the first, although he had a far broader appeal than Paul has. I guess we will see in 2024.

The Democrats.

A quick run-down: Less to say here, as last night really was of far less importance to the Democrats. The Clinton-Obama fight going into next week, however, is quite intriguing.

• Clinton: I would respect her position on Florida a lot more if she had said all of this from the get-go. Instead, she was willing to remain silent on the un-democratic moves of her party when she didn’t want to offend the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and only found her voice in regards to Floridians when it came time to pander to them. Not impressive.
• Obama: Still basking in the post-SC afterglow.
• Edwards:
  One does being to wonder what his goals are here. Surely it isn’t to be the veep candidate again. Does he have a strategic goal? Clearly he may simply want to spread his message, but in all seriousness, one does begin to wonder if he couldn’t put his time, effort and resources into a more productive venue to fight for the social causes he is currently campaigning on. Is he setting up a 2024 run? And at what point does running for president cease to be a principled effort and become a rich man’s hobby? He has every right to run, and more ideas in the debate are fine, but at some point one does wonder if one is being heard/what one’s endgame looks like.
• Gravel: I think Gravel is technically still running.

1. The argument being that Huckabee supposedly drains more votes from Romney than he does McCain by staying in, but I haven’t really looked at the numbers to confirm to be the case. Also, Huckabee has been verbally kind to McCain throughout the campaign. Of course, what will Chuck Norris say if Huckabee eventually throws in with McC? [↩]