In many ways we have no idea what will happen in Nevada. Like Iowa before it, the Caucuses can create any degree of strange brew that we don’t find in primaries. In a caucus voters declare their choice in the open and in front of their neighbors and friends. In a caucus voters don’t have all day to swing by a polling place, they get one chance to be there on time and then the doors close. In a caucus turnout is the most important factor but knowing who you have and who your opponents have is a tricky enterprise.

There are many factors that make Nevada different from Iowa. Firstly the population. Iowa has a small minority population that is predominantly rural, not so in Nevada. In Nevada the population is largely new and growing, much of it transported from across the country and importantly from across the southern border.

Perhaps the most important difference is the way the caucus is run. In Iowa, despite the new turnout seen this year, the people are used to the circus that descends on their state. They prepare every two years for it, running caucuses even when there is no presidential race. Four years ago Nevada almost did not matter in the race, the caucus was held much later in the calendar and the system itself is not used to having both an influence and what could be a rush of new people attending. “In 2004, Nevada had just 17 caucus locations. This year they will have 1,754.”

So in short, while there will be plenty of opinion polls to pour over today, I will post some later, while there will be many pundits declaring they know how and why things will turn out because of x, y or z, the reality is we probably won’t know until everything is said and done. Caucuses present a tricky set of problems and we all have enough problems prognosticating races in primaries that should be easier to foresee. So as I warned before Iowa, I will warn again. If anyone declares that they know with 100% certainty how this will all turn out, I wouldn’t believe them.