Is this state for real? The bias reported from the people interviewed makes it a candidate for Kansas-style creationist-teaching fundamentalists. Are any of these people moderates? Surely Salon could have done a little more digging.

Something tells me the moderates are voting Democratic this primary season.

South Carolinians don't seem to have the same thought processes the rest of us have. But if it's true that they always pick the eventual nominee, then it proves the 400 Millisecond Rule, that is, voters decide who they like in the first half-second of their initial encounter.

Still, I have to give credit when people blurt out what the rest of us are too polite to say out loud. The Romney "package" doesn't fit together well for me. It's not his being a Mormon, not his money, not his preppy look, it's that these things come together in one person. And that hair, of course. The hair gets me.

I'm glad Fred Thompson is finally eating his Wheaties. He'll be a fun target for the Democrats if he gets the nomination.

Will South Carolina again predict the winner of the overall race? This year, maybe not.

The fact that Mitt Romney is not competing actively for first place in South Carolina seems to invalidate the traditional South Carolina test, especially as he is nominally the front runner, counting either the popular vote, the delegate vote or the number of states won to date.

Why is Mitt not running? Mitt prefers to run in Nevada, where he is going to rack up substantially more delegates than he can possibly gain in South Carolina. Currently, Romney is favored to win Nevada by as many as fifteen percent, and the two top newspapers in the state have endorsed him in the last two days.

After a solid win in Michigan, Mitt can afford to split Saturday's contest, one state going to Mitt and the other a bludgeoning match between Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. As long as Mitt wins Nevada, he will still have the largest cumulative popular vote, the most delegates, the most states with a first place finish (three) and more momentum heading into Florida, where Mitt is statistically tied for first with Giuliani and McCain--and rising.

Another reason South Carolina may not be a good test this year is its relative lack of an economic downturn. Should the economy become the big issue of the 2008 campaign, it will likely be states like Michigan that more accurately predict the final vote, and Michigan has already been dominated by Romney.

A third issue--by now the nomination is usually down to two, maybe three candidates, but this year we still have at least five in the serious running. No candidate is likely to get much more than 30% of the vote. How would the vote have turned out differently if there were only two candidates still in the race?

Of course, South Carolina could prove substantial in winnowing the field. If Fred Thompson loses, he will have exhausted his last legs. If McCain wins, he will still only have won two states to Romney's three. In 2000, he had already won two states before losing in South Carolina. It is hard to argue that he has more momentum this time, after his loss in Michigan.

Ron Paul will likely eat up even more of the vote, adding even greater uncertainty to the prediction that will be spread out like peanut butter on a loaf of bread instead of the traditional favorite, a single slice.

South Carolina, this election, may not give such a certain sound. Who will benefit? The winner will get a little boost, but must split it with Romney heading into Florida.

And Nevada is likely to be a lot less confusing to interpret.

Why? I read about the Kinards and wonder anew. "Fox News viewer and passionate supporter of George W. Bush." How can people like this actually exist? Can you imagine how strong a country we'd be, north of the Confederate States of America? Thanks a lot, Abe ...

Responding to Mr. Shapiro's comment, "McCain's age [71] is the only thing that's bothering me about him".

Last time I checked, age discrimination is right up there with race and sexual bias. It's the 21st century. By now, we should have ALL cozied up to, and embraced, the credos of diversity and non-discrimination.

I won't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. She loses my vote because of her spouse. The Clintons had their eight years in the White House. Thanks to that dynasty, the image of what the US Presidency should be has been lowered by one too many notches.

My 2008 presidential vote goes to the candidate with more principle, understanding and concern for this nation than their own ambitions. Right now, that would be Fred Thompson.

best regards,

P. Angel

Undeclared in Colorado

Put all the Kinards in one place, and we'd own 'em, every one, they're so incredibly out-of-touch with reality.

ah well. We should have let the South secede, then we could have conquered the fuckers and ruled them like serfs.

although, I suppose, in a way, that's exactly what happened. The GOP has been brainwashing these poor yokels for nearly fify years now.

seriously? I didn't realize...

Tangerine, we couldn't let the South secede back in the day. They were holding too many hostages.

Now, it's a different story.

Those who are making remarks regarding South Carolina seceding and being full of whackos are really demonstrating their liberal values of tolerance and pluralism well. Insulting people is indeed a good way to make them sympathetic to your cause! Although this is symptomatic of the divisive nature of our politics, frankly, we liberals (whom I would assume are making the remarks) need to rise above that. Such is the legacy of Karl Rove - do you really want to descend to his level? What ever happened to basic respect, even if you happen to vehemently disagree with somebody? If you think you're joking, it's not funny.

This kind of stupidity gives credence to the 'elitist' label we have been enduring for far too long. And Edwards' lack of traction sometimes makes me wonder if it's really true. The Two Democratic Parties. Yuck. This is why I vote Green and Progressive whenever possible.

And Walter, I'm really disappointed that you didn't manage to find some more reasonable folks to interview. They don't have to be centrists, but this is a little over the top. People like this are EVERYWHERE, not just South Carolina, and I'm disappointed to see this stereotyping in this publication. Almost as bad as the weirdos your colleague dug up from Paul's supporters - like that kid who took out thousands of dollars in credit card debt to give to Paul's campaign. I know for a fact that there are reasonable Paul supporters in the world. Let's talk to more of the rational people instead of letting zealots and near-imbeciles characterize the candidates we don't like. That's just irresponsible.