Analysis: Campaign '08, Elementary So Far

This analysis was written by CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs.

An unprecedented amount of analytical brainpower is being expended in explaining this unpredictable campaign but the best answer may be the simplest one: In the absence of an incumbent representative, we have a fractured nomination fight among various wings of the Republican Party. Among energized Democrats, the fight has come down to a classic fight between the establishment and an insurgent candidacy.

On the Democratic side, there are "two perfectly reasonable candidates," says David Brady, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. And despite the historic natures of the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, voters are breaking down in fairly familiar ways.

As the establishment candidate, Clinton is showing strong support among voters who are older, middle or lower class and those with less formal education. Obama. the outsider, is the candidate of choice for the more affluent and younger voters as well as those with higher levels of education. In that way, the race resembles many of the Democratic contests of the past: McGovern v. Muskie; Mondale v. Hart; Gore v. Bradley; Kerry v. Dean.

Clinton was perceived as the prohibitive front-runner coming in but her candidacy has always labored under disadvantages. Bill Clinton's presidency is considered successful among most in the party yet scandals and "triangulation" strategies led to Republican gains and left a sour taste among some in the party. Her initial and subsequent support of the war in Iraq added to the opening through which Obama has strolled.

The wild cards in this particular fight are clear and easily understood: With the exception of Iowa, Clinton has won women voters in large margins while Obama, at least to extent we can extrapolate, has a huge advantage among black voters. His larger-than expected Iowa win and Clinton's New Hampshire surprise aside, there's not much going on in this race that has been all that unpredictable. How black women and Hispanics vote in the coming weeks may help determine the nomination but Clinton retains an historical advantage at this point simply because those voters with which she is strongest constitute the bulk of the traditional Democratic primary total.

The Republican contest is more difficult to sort out but even this convoluted contest shouldn't be a surprise, says Brady. The party entered the campaign depressed. An unpopular president and losses in Congress have led to a pessimistic feeling within the party. The fact that there is no "incumbent" candidate in the field has resulted in candidates vying for individual constituencies and none appealing to the broader party.

"It's not terribly startling given we're in a rare situation in which we have an unpopular president and no heir-apparent on the side of the party that holds the presidency," Princeton presidential historian Fred Greenstein told CBSNews.com. "You expect the party to be mixed up about this, and they are," agreed Brady.

Mike Huckabee has proven to be the candidate of evangelicals, riding their support to an Iowa victory and a close second in South Carolina. But even with his populist economic approach and affable personality, Huckabee has yet to prove he can expand beyond that.

John McCain has once again shown he is a popular choice among Republican-leaning independent voters and, according to exit polling in New Hampshire and elsewhere, has been the favorite of party members unhappy with the Bush Administration. But he has yet to prove that he can attract more than a third or so of Core Republicans.

Mitt Romney, who has spent more money in the early states by far than any other GOP candidate, has demonstrated only that he can win lightly competitive contests in a state where he was born and his father was governor and another where half the voters were fellow Mormons. Still, Romney remains competitive, piling up delegates through second-place showings.

And Rudy Giuliani has proven only that a well-known candidate can, for a time at least, get by without competing at all.

So Obama and Huckabee won Iowa, McCain and Clinton prevailed in New Hampshire. Romney has won Michigan, narrow victories for McCain in South Carolina and Clinton in Nevada add to the momentary confusion.

Muddled? Sure. Chaotic? You bet. But is there a reason to think this campaign would have unfolded any other way?