With all the fuss at the moment being focused on South Carolina you'd be forgiven for thinking, as I did, that it is the next on the trail. In fact it is Michigan next, though only really for the Republicans, then Nevada before stopping off at South Carolina. So what's the deal here? I can understand Michigan falling off the map for many liberal reporters as the democrats have punished the state by saying no delegates can go to national conference on their behalf, but Nevada is there and crying out for attention, and being the western most state so far it is also an interesting insight into another geographical demographic.

Perhaps the reason is that it is another round of caucuses rather than easier to report on primaries, or perhaps it is because Clinton has generally enjoyed a double figure lead over Obama, but all of that has suddenly changed. A poll on the CNN site shows that far from the 20+ point leads Clinton had through late 2007, a December poll finds her less than 10 points ahead. Fast forward to this weekend and polls are actually starting to say that Obama is in the lead, albeit just by a nose.

What has caused this turn is possible for many reasons. Clinton's lead in Nevada originally was as large as her lead nationally at the time, and as such it can be expected that Nevada was simply just mimicking mass opinion than being staunchly Clinton voters. The fact that Obama hasn't surged ahead in Nevada as he has nationally, however, does show that Clinton has a good grip here even if it is loosening day by day. This grip isn't helped by the seemingly constant stream of news that seems to go against her. Firstly you have the racial issues, then the smearing of her opponents on things like Iraq, a growing feeling of the need to break the dynasty of Clinton/Bush politics and finally, most recently, pro-Clinton democrats trying to legally stop some democrats from being able to take part in the caucuses...no surprise what demographic is potentially going to lose out if they're successful.

Could it be that this state has snuck up on the Clinton team, originally meant to be a safe and strong win for her but now turning out to be another fight to be won? In all honesty it's hard to see how the big business of Las Vegas and the west wouldn't vote for Hillary but her team seem to be making it harder for her at every step. The demographics of the state aren't dissimilar from New Hampshire and John Edwards, despite some ties, isn't doing as well in the polls as he is in South Carolina, and so I would be surprised if Clinton didn't win it, but surely this goes to show if it ends up being close that you really can't leave anything for granted in this race any longer