Each party has an "in" candidate and each has an "out" candidate (not that there's anything wrong with that!). The "in" candidate draws his or her support from traditional, inward-looking partisan constituencies: For example, the Democratic "in" candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the New Hampshire primary by beating Obama among self-identified Democrats and traditional Democratic voters like single and older women, union households, Catholics, and downscale voters. The Republican "in" candidate, Mitt Romney, won self-identified Republicans and conservatives in Iowa, split self-identified Republicans in New Hampshire with McCain, and won conservatives, including the "very" conservative, in New Hampshire. An "out" candidate expands the electorate, drawing his support from nontraditional or transpartisan constituencies. So it was independents who helped Obama win Iowa and McCain win New Hampshire. The out candidates may face challenges from within their own party, but each holds the promise of reshaping the political landscape and mediating the more corrosive effects of polarization. So far, the out candidates in the Republican party - Huckabee and McCain - have done better than the in candidate Romney. It's the Democratic party that seems torn between expanding the electorate and winning an election with its core support. Thing is, one reason the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections is that independents sided with them by a whopping 18 points. Yes, politics is never a straight-line projection from the present, as we all learned last night, but it seems that one lesson the 2006 election holds for 2008 is that the winning party will be the party that wins, or at least neutralizes, the independent vote. And if that's the case, then the party which has an "out" candidate as its nominee stands a stronger chance of winning the general election. Somewhere, believe it or not, there are Republicans smiling at last night's results.