With Three States Down, Candidates Mull Their Strategies

AMY WALTER: Well, this is where we found some really interesting dynamics. And it also goes to show that there's not necessarily one answer to all these questions.

If electability were a concern of yours, we would have thought, well, Hillary Clinton should win that. Actually, Barack Obama won on the question of electability. But she obviously succeeded on experience.

But where she also did better -- and this is probably John Edwards' best characteristic -- was on, you know, cares about people. And the question is, how do people interpret that? Meaning they understand your issues or your concerns better. And going to Stu's point, which is, if you're talking about a certain type of voter, they felt like they connected on those issues.

But on the issue of change, which still half the voters who turned out in the Democratic primary said change was the number-one issue, Barack Obama won there, but that really wasn't enough of an advantage when you come back to the fact that, on core issues, the economy, people really felt like she was the candidate they wanted to support.

STUART ROTHENBERG: I think the Edwards factor is really interesting here. Obviously, there was a falloff in the Edwards vote from Iowa to New Hampshire.

And I think most people are assuming -- it's not unreasonable to assume -- that there's the pro-change vote and the anti-change vote, and Edwards is the -- and Obama and Edwards are sharing a pro-change vote.

But if you think about it, if you look at some of the appeal, some of the message that you get out of Edwards and have been getting, certainly, he talked a lot about jobs, and jobs going overseas, and trade. His overall approach was rather angry. He talked a lot about the economy.

Senator Clinton did best on the economy. Senator Clinton actually did better among people who were very angry about the Bush administration. So I think she took away some of his votes, I think.

AMY WALTER: Well, if we go back and we talk a little bit about who made up the electorate for Republicans, there were fewer independents who turned out than the last time that there was a competitive race there, in 2000, when McCain -- obviously, his success -- he banked on independents, and he did tremendously well.

He beat George Bush among independents by 43 points, even while losing Republicans. So this time around, the contention was he has to get really strong with independents.

Well, not as many independents turned out, but it didn't matter, because he did better among Republicans. He was tied with Mitt Romney, and he still won the independents by 13 points. It's not 43 percent, but it's still not a bad deal.

What he was able to do in terms of his coalition, it's very -- it's sort of schizophrenic. And on the one hand, he did well with establishment Republicans, the kinds of people who were voting for George Bush last time.

But also, for the people who disliked the Bush administration, he was their guy. People who said they were very concerned -- this is one of the most interesting things -- if you strongly disapproved of the war -- right, this is John McCain, supporting the surge, talking about that a lot -- you supported John McCain.

Now, Ron Paul came in second, of course, but you still supported John McCain. So what is the message coming out of here? Who is John McCain? I think even in a state where he spent so much time, even voters there don't necessarily know.

STUART ROTHENBERG: This is a coalition at odds with itself. Let me just give you an example.

The McCain niche, whatever that niche is. He ran even with Huckabee and Romney among evangelicals and born-again Christians. He won gun-owner households.

And he won voters who said that religious beliefs of the candidate matter a lot. You will recall in Iowa that was a big Huckabee constituency.

At the same time, he won among Republicans that said abortion should always be legal. He won among...

MARGARET WARNER: Even though he is anti-abortion?

STUART ROTHENBERG: ... strong supporters of civil unions in New Hampshire. He won with moderates and liberals and lost strong conservatives.

I mean, you have to wonder, when he goes to these states that have closed primaries -- we're talking about Florida at the end of the month, and then some of the big February 5th days...

MARGARET WARNER: Where only Republicans can vote, you mean.

STUART ROTHENBERG: Closed primaries where only Republicans can vote, California, New York, Connecticut, Oklahoma, where is he going to get his vote? Now, maybe it will be the kind of reformer-outsider message, or maybe he will become the establishment candidate.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what about the Huckabee phenom that everyone was looking for here?

AMY WALTER: Well, we always knew New Hampshire was going to be tough for him, going exactly back to the point that the evangelical vote not as important.

I think what's going to be interesting to watch is to see how Huckabee does in Michigan, to see if that message sells. A populist messaging, again, another place where you're going to have religious conservatives, can he get those folks together, get a little bit more of a bump before he goes to South Carolina, where he is saying today he expects to win?

MARGARET WARNER: And, briefly, the hot-button issue on that side of the ledger, the immigration issue. Will that work enough for Romney? Obviously not.

STUART ROTHENBERG: Well, the state divided evenly between people. Half of the Republicans said, "Deport them all." And the other half said, "No, either we'll figure out some way to keep them working, or we'll actually give them a path to citizenship."

Romney did very well among the people who said, "Deport them all." McCain did, of course, very well among the others. This shows the continued division in the Republican ranks, I think.

MARGARET WARNER: And in New Hampshire, it was less than a quarter who thought it was the most important issue, but that may be different elsewhere.

Stu and Amy, thank you both.

Mark, both the Republican and the Democratic races got scrambled as a result of what happened last night. How do you read the Democratic scramble, as of right now?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: As of right now, Jim, obviously, the rush to coronation for Hillary Clinton was stopped in Iowa. The rush to a coronation for Barack Obama was stopped in New Hampshire.

And I think, at this point, what you have emerging is a strategy for Obama that he's got to win Nevada and South Carolina and deprive Clinton of victories in either place.

And I'd add to that, I think Clinton will try and recast the race that where there's more personal and more intimate personality. She had been the ice queen, really, until the last 48 hours of the New Hampshire race. And I think it played a key, pivotal role in the decision there.

I think she'll try and cast it as experience and expertise on her part, against sort of a risky inexperience on the other side. And I think he'll try and frame it as insurgent versus establishment.

JIM LEHRER: Is that pretty much, though, what the themes have been up until now, or do you see some changes, David, coming as a result?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, I think there will be some changes. But I think the core issue is the demographics, that she does extremely well among people who are less educated, among people who are poorer, and among people who are older, basically sort of a Wal-Mart set.

Obama does much better among people who are more educated and richer. And this is a traditional way Democratic races have broken down. And you tend to have one candidate who's the Starbucks candidate, whether it's Bill Bradley or Paul Tsongas or now Barack Obama.

Traditionally, the candidate that wins the high school vote ends up winning, just because there are a lot more of them.

The interesting factor here is that you have Obama who gets the upper, the educated class, but he's also African-American. So he could take the educated class and the minority voters in the Democratic Party.

And that's a much more plausible majority than Bill Bradley or Paul Tsongas ever had. So, to me, it's that demographic breakdown that really is the crucial one.

JIM LEHRER: So neither of you expect some major retooling, some major new messages?

MARK SHIELDS: No, no, I think each of them realizes they had a message that was successful in two crucial contests. I'd say this, Jim.

One of the things we're going to see is that -- David made the point last night, and it was a valid point -- that paid media, that is, the paid advertising campaigns, had little impact. That's because all the politicking up until now was retail.

The candidates were in the states. And the races were covered by free media, television, radio, print, you know, from wall to wall. So people didn't have to go to television for information. Now we're into wholesale.

JIM LEHRER: That's a change, right.

MARK SHIELDS: Right, wholesale politics, and which we're going to change the demographics. I mean, we're moving into states now, from 95 percent-plus white states, overwhelmingly white states, to states that Jesse Jackson carried, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, when he was a candidate, and not seemed nearly as plausible a national candidate as Barack Obama is, Mississippi, Missouri, Virginia.

I mean, those are states that now are coming into play where the African-American vote is crucial to any Democrat winning statewide, let alone a presidential candidate.

DAVID BROOKS: Maybe even more so the Hispanic vote, which is much more in play, I think.

JIM LEHRER: And that, of course, is at play in Nevada, because the 60,000 members of this Culinary Workers Union, many of them are Hispanic.

MARK SHIELDS: It's probably the best political operation in the state.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, the Culinary Workers Union.

JIM LEHRER: David, the John Edwards -- neither of you have mentioned John Edwards. Is he a factor in this? And if so, what kind?

DAVID BROOKS: He'll hang around, as he said. He's in it until the convention. He did win South Carolina, so he has some strength there.

I think he's a limited factor, in part because the top two are so good, in part because they're just...

JIM LEHRER: Too good as candidates?

DAVID BROOKS: As candidates, and they represent real things. And his message is always a limited message.

If you ask people, "Do you distrust big government more or big corporations more?" That poll result question has been asked for about 30 or 40 years. It hasn't changed: 60 percent of Americans distrust big government; about 20 percent distrust big corporations.

Big corporations, like General Electric, AT&T, have 90 percent approval ratings. There is a group of people who are moved by the message of anti-corporate greed, but it's a small minority group. And I don't see it expanding much.

So he's got a strong niche following, but it's just going to remain a niche following.

JIM LEHRER: All right, the Republicans, after the scramble...

MARK SHIELDS: Can I just say about John Edwards?

JIM LEHRER: Quickly, we've got to go to the Republicans.

MARK SHIELDS: I think the field and the evidence available right now is replete with evidence and examples of corporate misdeeds and mishandling. John Edwards is appealing to that.

John Edwards has a favorable rating among Democrats of 80 percent who voted. They would be happy to have him as their nominee, almost as happy as they would be to have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, far more happy than they would be to have -- any Republican would be to have anybody in their field.

So it must be an incredibly frustrating experience for him.