A House race pitting a liberal comedian’s sister against a strict, conservative opponent might seem like a strange place for a GOP donor to turn blue.

But at least 16 donors to Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democratic nominee for Congress in South Carolina’s 1^st congressional district, have also given recently to a Republican – in some cases, one of the 16 Republican candidates vying for their party’s nomination to challenge Colbert Busch in the May 7 general election.

But when asked why they decided to switch – or in some cases, straddle – sides this time, these donors spoke not of a sudden political conversion, but rather the desire to give a little help to their friend Lulu, as those who know Colbert Busch call her. 

Bruce Smith / AP

Elizabeth Colbert Bush, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert, shares a laugh with reporters after voting in Mount Pleasant, S.C., on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

The mantra “all politics is local” rings true for John LaVerne, the owner of Charleston’s Bulldog Tours, which offers ghost walks and culinary tours of the historic city. Usually a Republican voter, LaVerne gave his friend Colbert-Busch $250 after donating the same amount to Mitt Romney’s campaign in May 2012.

LaVerne said the Democratic nominee “blew me away” when they met three years ago, and he has been telling his Republican friends that “she’s the smartest candidate out there.”

Another connection: Colbert Busch’s daughter works for LaVerne as Bulldog’s operations manager.

“[Colbert Bush] raised her kids by herself, all three of them, and they’re all three phenomenal people,” he said. “That says a lot.”

Despite the attention to her candidacy aided by her brother’s celebrity, Colbert Busch is considered an underdog against either of her would-be Republican opponents, former Gov. Mark Sanford or Curtis Bostic. A runoff GOP primary will decide between Sanford and Bostic, but the district is solidly Republican.

Still, Colbert Busch can point to some of these crossover voters as evidence of the kind of bipartisan appeal she would need to win this special election to fill the former House seat of now-Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

Thomas Doyle, the owner of Palmetto Carriage Works, feels the same way as LaVerne about Colbert Busch – she’s his mother’s best friend and was his confirmation mother at the Cathedral at St. John the Baptist, which is why, out of “my loyalty to Lulu,” he donated $500 to her campaign.

Politically, though, Doyle said they couldn’t be further apart, which is why he voted last Tuesday for Republican Teddy Turner, son of CNN mogul Ted, who came in fourth with 8 percent in the primary.

Doyle said politicians don’t affect him much, so if it turns out his donation helps her win, “more power to her.”

Even Doyle’s vote for Turner was shaped by personal relationships: his wife works at Charleston Collegiate School, where Turner is an economics teacher. “So I really didn’t have much choice there,” he said, laughing.

That’s just the way local races in South Carolina work, Charleston lawyer Mark Tanenbaum said.

“A lot of people know that when they have a friendship with candidates, you contribute when you’re asked to,” he said. “We all see each other, know each other, and feel an obligation to a certain extent so long as in the long run it’s not going to defeat our ideals.”

Tanenbaum, a Democrat, donated to both Colbert Busch, whom he supports, and one of the Republicans who sought to oppose her, state Rep. Chip Limehouse, who came in seventh. 

“I’ve known Chip Limehouse for quite some time. He’s a friend of mine; he asked me if I would give him some money just for the primary. He knew that if he got into the general election that I was not able to support him,” Tanenbaum said. 

Charles Way, president of real estate firm The Beach Company, gave $1,000 to Limehouse and $500 to Colbert Busch less than a month later. “They’re both good friends of mine,” he said, adding that his actual vote would remain “between me and the polling place.” 

The party-flipping goes both ways: one Charleston businessman, a lifelong Democrat, gave $1,000 to Tim Scott’s congressional campaign in 2010 after Scott sat him down personally, telling him he would be an “independent thinker” in the House of Representatives.

Scott, now a Senate appointee, turned out to be a “tremendous disappointment,” the businessman said. So by 2013 he was ready to make a contribution to Colbert Busch, with whom he was already friendly.

“I had known Lulu and thought very highly of her but had not thought of her in a political context before,” he said.

Even if Colbert Busch makes the most out of her donations, from Republican friends and others, she’s still running in a district that Romney won by 10 percent in 2012 – a reality that Robert New, a Romney donor who also gave to Colbert Busch, acknowledged.

“There are certainly some people on the waterfront who are unhappy [with Sanford],” said New, the owner of a Charleston waterfront business who became friends with Colbert Busch when she worked for a shipping company. New said many port businesspeople were turned off by Sanford’s anti-earmark stance that he took to Washington during his first congressional tenure in the 1990’s.

“But,” he added, “I still think she’s an outside shot.”

Here’s one of the eternal truths of American politics: The stories never stop, even after a presidential election.

So next month in South Carolina, former Republican Gov. Mark Sanford will run in a primary for his old congressional seat. Yes, that's the same Mark Sanford who was once supposed to be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Instead, he was with his Argentine mistress, sparking quite a scandal.

Then, later this spring in Massachusetts, there will be the race for the Senate seat vacated by new Secretary of State John Kerry. Yet with former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., declining to run, the seat will likely remain in Democratic hands.

And between now and the summer, there will be plenty of other races, legislative fights and controversies across the country to follow.

But as the political world begins turning its attention to the next presidential race -- still more than 1,300 days away -- no state will be more important to watch over the next four years than Florida.

It will be important to watch because of next year's gubernatorial race, which could be a contest between current Republican Gov. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist, a Democrat who once served as the state’s Republican governor.

It will be important to watch because two high-profile Floridians -- Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeb Bush, another former governor -- could very well run for president in 2016. 

And it will be important because Florida, with its growing Latino vote, has emerged as a state that Republicans have to win in order to triumph in future presidential elections.

Demography is destiny in Florida
The Sunshine State consists of different geographic regions, each with their own politics. There’s the conservative-leaning Panhandle, as well as the liberal-leaning southern part of the state (mixed with its fascinating Cuban-American politics).

And then there's that swing I-4 Corridor -- Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- although the most recent elections have suggested the region might be less swing (and more Democratic leaning) than in past cycles.

But the most fascinating part of Florida isn't geography; it's its demography.

To understand Florida’s changing demographics and the growing power of the Latino vote, consider these statistics.

In 2012, Barack Obama won just 37 percent of the white vote in the state, which was five points worse than John Kerry in 2004.

But unlike Kerry, Obama won Florida. How did he do it? For one thing, the Latino population increased from 15 percent of Florida’s electorate in 2004 to 17 percent in 2012.

More importantly, Obama won 60 percent of those voters, versus Kerry losing them in ’04. Obama also won a majority of the Cuban-American vote.

That’s the demographic reality now facing the Republican Party, and why some national Republicans like Rubio and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are working to pass comprehensive immigration reform. (It’s also why Florida has wanted to have an early role in GOP presidential nominating contests.)

As McCain recently said, “The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."

And if Republicans can’t win Florida in presidential elections, it’s next to impossible to win the White House.

After all, a Democratic candidate winning just the three states of California, Florida and New York gets 113 electoral votes -- more than 40 percent of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Scott vs. Crist?
After its losses in 2012, the first test of how the Republican Party is faring in Florida will be its competitive gubernatorial contest next year.

While the race is more than a year away, here are three sets of figures to keep in mind.

The first is 31 -- that’s the percentage of Floridians holding a favorable view of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, according to a December Quinnipiac poll. Compare that with 54 percent for President Obama and 47 percent for Republican-turned Democrat Charlie Crist.

The second number is 8.0 percent -- that’s Florida’s current unemployment rate. It’s a high number, slightly above U.S. average. But it’s down from the 10.9 percent it was when Scott first took office. That’s progress Rick Scott can point to.

The third and final number is 80 -- as in the $80 million Scott spent in his successful gubernatorial bid in 2010. That’s a lot of money, and money Democrats won’t be able to match. And it’s now being reported that Scott could spend as much as $100 million in next year’s race.

In addition to those three sets of numbers, there are three unresolved questions:

-- Does Charlie Crist run? If he does, he’d be the Democratic front-runner, despite his recent conversion to the Democratic Party.

-- Can Scott improve his standing with independent voters? In that December Quinnipiac poll, just 25 percent of independents had a favorable view of the governor.

-- And can Scott and Republicans make better inroads with the growing Latino vote?

2016: Rubio and Jeb
So that’s for 2014. But there’s another story already developing involving the Sunshine State – the 2016 presidential election.

Yes, it’s early. Yes, things are fluid. And, yes, everything right now is speculation. But it’s also clear that freshman Sen, Marco Rubio is more than eyeing a potential presidential bid.

As one Florida Democratic strategist told First Read: “I believe [Rubio] runs in 2016 for the same reason that President Obama ran in 2008 -- you never know when the window opens and closes.”

Rubio has assembled a top-notch staff. What’s more, he’s part of a group of bipartisan senators pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, whose principles are broadly supported by President Obama.

Rubio’s current task is selling this reform to prominent conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. 

And on Tuesday night, Rubio will be delivering the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union on Tuesday, which is a huge platform for the Florida senator.

But here’s the question for him: Does he run if another Floridian -- former Gov. Jeb Bush -- runs? Is there enough space for two Florida Republicans in a potential 2016 GOP primary?

As Buzzfeed recently wrote, “With their shared passion for immigration reform, overlapping donor networks, and long, healthy alliance, Rubio and Bush have put Miami's political class in the improbable position of having two ‘favorite sons’ in the top tier of 2016 speculation — and sources say both men are actively mulling it.

Indeed, there are indications Bush is at least considering a presidential run. Next month, he is scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, an annual cattle call that’s a must for potential Republican presidential candidates. And this will be the first time Bush has spoken to this group.

Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. Rick Scott. Charlie Crist. Demographics. Close races (some decided by hanging chads).

Florida has been the place for some of America’s best political stories for more than a decade. And, it’s safe to say, that will continue over the next four years.

Editor’s note: This article was adapted from a recent speech the author gave at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Fla.

Updated 3:10 pm ET: Ex-South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford will announce tomorrow that he is running for Congress, First Read confirms with an aide close to Sanford.

Sanford will announce via press release tomorrow; there will be no press conference or public events associated with it, according to an aide.

NBC previously reported that Sanford would attempt a political comeback running for his old first congressional district seat. Sanford would be running to replace Tim Scott, who was appointed to Jim DeMint's Senate seat. 

DeMint resigned from Congress to head up The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank and activist group.

National Review has a lengthy Q&A with Sanford on why he's running, including his first shot at explaining his 2009 disappearance and affair with an Argentine TV reporter.

"There’s a larger philosophical question. In life we’re all going to make mistakes, we’re all going to come up short," Sanford said. "The key is, how do you get back up and how do you learn from those mistakes? . . . But I think that the bigger issue is, don’t judge any one person by their best day, don’t judge them by their worst day. Look at the totality, the whole of their life, and make judgments accordingly."

He added, "You’ve got to look under the hood. There’s that sensational headline, to look and say, 'Wow, big ethics charge.' Beyond the headline, what does that mean? You say, 'Hm. There were 37 counts the ethics committee brought, and did you know half of those are for taking a business-class ticket?' You look under the hood and you say, 'Wow.'"

Sanford also touted his record, including that he turned down stimulus funds.

"I was rated No. 1 in Congress by National Taxpayers Union, and No. 1 by Citizens against Government Waste in efforts to limit federal spending, rated by Cato as the most fiscally responsible governor in the United States," he said. "I was the first governor to turn down stimulus funds. I won’t go through all the merit badges, but I could give you dozens of different occasions where I stood very solidly on the side of the taxpayer."

It took several dominoes to fall for Sanford to be lined up to run in this race, something Sanford also acknowledged.

"I’m not saying it was God-ordained or anything like that," Sanford said, "but a series of rather miraculous events have coincided here, that did not escape the attention of the friends who were urging me to look at this."

GREER, SC -- Declaring "we are the ones that brought up" the topic of Medicare, Mitt Romney tried to pivot to offense on the topic of the popular entitlement program, telling reporters today that Americans have a "stark choice" between his vision and President Obama's.

Writing on a white board used as a prop, Romney sought to clarify the difference between the two campaigns' positions on Medicare. Obama's means bankruptcy, Romney said, casting his own path as one toward solvency.

"My plan presents no change. My plan stays the same. No adjustments, no changes, no savings. The president’s plan cuts Medicare -- excuse me, well let’s see, I’ve got, there we go, by $716 billion cut," Romney said, scribbling on the board. "In addition, the trustees of Medicare estimate that approximately 4 million people will lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage. This is the plan they’ve chosen, the chose they prefer some 4 million current seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plan."

Related: Campaign turns into Medicare debate

The differences, Romney argued, were "stark and dramatic," echoing advisers who, in the past several days, have telegraphed that the GOP nominee was set to go on the offensive on Medicare. "We’re going to get a lot of support from people who understand that Medicare should be protected for current seniors as well as for the next generation.”

Romney disputed that his plan for future seniors could be called a voucher system, and argued that it would create more choice and less government interference for younger workers who have not yet approached retirement. He said his plan would keep Medicare solvent by lowering costs through greater competition, and by indexing benefits to income levels, meaning higher income seniors would receive fewer benefits than those with greater need.

"The plan that I've put forward is a plan very similar to Medicare Advantage," Romney said. "It gives all of the next generation retirees the option of having either standard Medicare, a fee-for-service-type, government-run Medicare, or a private Medicare plan. They get their choice."

Evan Vucci / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney points to a white board as he talks about Medicare during a news conference at Spartanburg International Airport Aug. 16.

Since the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate on Saturday, some Republicans have fretted that the younger congressman's own Medicare plan, which includes the same $716 billion in Medicare cuts that Romney decries, might be a distraction from Romney's core message on the economy. Romney disputed that too, calling Medicare a "big issue," that could sway seniors to the GOP ticket this fall.

“I think we are the ones that brought up the topic. I wanted to make sure that people understand what the president has done in welfare, what the president has done in Medicare," Romney said. "In both places he’s made pretty dramatic changes which I think the people of America will find illustrative of a very different point of view than I think most people have."

Romney also stuck by the fiery rhetoric he deployed on Tuesday night, when he called the Obama presidency "angry and desperate" to hold onto power.

"I think the American people are also disturbed with a campaign that's been as divisive as this campaign has been," accusing the Obama campaign and the vice president of tactics "unbecoming of the presidency."

Asked whether his own language, including telling supporters at rallies and fundraisers that the president does not understand America, contributed to the negative tone of the campaign, Romney did not respond, calling on another reporter to ask the next question.

Rare is the Tea Party-tested Republican senator who hangs an image of the Kennedys' Hyannisport home over his desk and shows off the painter's personal inscription.

"Orrin," reads the note, scribbled below a cobalt-blue sea. "We'll leave the light on at the compound for you anytime. Ted Kennedy, '91."

The beacon of bipartisanship that defined their odd-couple relationship still guides Utah's Orrin Hatch. He didn't advertise it as he wooed and won over the tea partiers who, two years ago, toppled fellow conservative Robert Bennett from his Senate perch.

But now, with his state's Senate GOP nomination in hand and re-election to a seventh term all but assured, Hatch, 78, can think about his legacy.

He's very clear about what he wants: As the senior Republican in the Senate, his party's top voice on the tax-writing Finance Committee, Hatch wants a deal that restructures the tax code while also slowing and even stopping the government's accumulation of debt. To get it, he says he'll practice the art of compromise over the take-my-marbles-and-leave mentality that has tied up Congress in recent years.

"There has to be a course correction," Hatch said in a recent interview. "If I am chairman of the Finance Committee, you can bet your sweet bippy I will take a leading role."

A new tax code, he says, would have to be bipartisan to pass Congress and, as importantly, have credibility with the Americans who will fork over large chunks of their paychecks under it. Orchestrating it will require a delicate touch with Washington's most muscular interest groups and stubborn factions of both parties.

In the vaulted Capitol hideaway office he inherited from Kennedy — the seascape hanging nearby — Hatch offered a reality check on how lawmaking happens.

"Neither side is going to get everything they want," he said. "But it is important that we move ahead, and that we do the art of the doable to pull this country out of the fiscal morass it's in. And I think we can."

Hatch can be so explicit about compromise now because he is the ultimate Senate survivor:

—Of his own stern, televised reading of "The Exorcist" during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

—Of a failed presidential bid in 2000 that was dwarfed by the George W. Bush juggernaut.

—Of his vote for the 2008 bank bailout, an apostasy to the same tea partiers who ousted Bennett.

—And in June, of the first real threat to re-election since winning his Senate seat in 1976.

Washington's political tribal chiefs know that the conservatism Hatch has emphasized in his re-election campaign co-exists with an interest in getting results on Capitol Hill and a long-demonstrated willingness to compromise.

The type of real, red-faced debate that delighted Hatch and Kennedy also produced landmark laws like the American Disabilities Act and children's health insurance. With former Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, the bellowing begat federally subsidized child care. Tense talks with no less a partisan than Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., produced a patent exemption that cleared the way for the generic drug industry.

Hatch's last two years of ideological purity — a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, compared with an average 84 percent rating the previous five years — may have been driven by a survival instinct, but it still irritates some.

Vice President Biden recalled how the Utah Republican was an original co-sponsor of his 1994 bill that became the Violence Against Women Act, only to vote against its renewal and expansion this year.

"Orrin and I always had a good personal relationship. We disagreed on a lot but where we found common ground, we worked together," Biden said in a statement to The Associated Press. "I hope those days return."

Tax reform could well be Hatch's enduring legacy. The contours of the debate are clear and broadly philosophical: Republicans think the government levies enough taxes already but growing the economy would produce more revenue. Democrats say the wealthiest are not taxed enough.

Much, of course, depends on who wins the White House and control of Congress.

Here is where the debate would start: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney agrees with Hatch that there should be a one-year extension on all of the Bush-era tax cuts, then comprehensive tax reform. President Barack Obama wants to let those tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 a year, and then do reform.

Hatch would have great say in where the discussion ends — with a new tax code, a collapse of talks or something in-between. He has willing negotiating partners in both parties, beginning with his Democratic counterpart atop the Finance Committee hierarchy, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, and including some of the most agile dealmakers in Congress.

"Orrin is good, one of the best," says Waxman.

No one suggests that Hatch, for all his red meat bluster lately, comes back to the Senate next year any less of a dealmaker. Right now, longtime colleagues say, Hatch is doing what Hatch does best: adapt to the "rhythms of change."

"Politics is not a static business. The ability of someone who's good at this, and unfortunately we don't give enough credit for it, is the ability to understand that the public's mood is not static either," Dodd, now president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in an interview. "Orrin's got a very good ear. And he used it."

The South Carolina Republican who calls himself "Sen. Tea Party" attributes Hatch's longevity to engaging, rather than dismissing, critics from the right.

"He didn't go home and try to explain to people why they were wrong," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a chief patron of tea party candidates. "He went home and listened."

By the time the tea party had defeated Bennett in a state convention two years ago, Hatch was already on the move. He faced voters deeply suspicious about Washington insiders. For those who said that 36 years in office was enough, he said that he wouldn't be running again if it weren't for the chance he'll become chairman of the Finance Committee. For those who said he wasn't conservative enough, he gravitated to the right.

Hatch also spent about $10 million on a campaign unlike any Utah had seen. He won endorsement from Romney, another of Utah's favorite sons. In the state's June primary running against former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist, Hatch won two-thirds of the vote.

Three months from the general election, Hatch is still riling up the base. He'll casually toss off a comment about how he doesn't understand why Obama's experience as a community organizer qualifies him to lead the country. He framed Obama's plans to tax the wealthiest Americans as an attack on small businesses.

For many, the question is whether Hatch hews to conservatism in what are sure to be tough negotiations on taxes and changing entitlement benefit programs.

DeMint thinks a brief moment and concludes, "I trust him."

Updated 10:04 p.m. ET

Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina Republican primary, capping off a remarkable comeback for his presidential bid that reshapes the trajectory of the battle for the GOP nomination as the race now heads to Florida and beyond.

The results mark the end of a tumultuous week in politics that saw Gingrich erase and then overcome the lead former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had in the Palmetto State following his victory in the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary. Gingrich came on strong in the closing days of the campaign, looking to rally under his banner the many conservatives unwilling to get behind Romney, who had sought to posture himself as the eventual nominee.

"We don't have the kind of money at least one of the candidates has," Gingrich said in his victory remarks. "But we do have ideas and we do have people. And we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money."

VIEW full South Carolina primary results

Gingrich spent most of his speech Saturday night lashing out at "media elites" in New York and Washington, D.C., while castigating President Obama. He leaned on wonky explanations of policy to draw contrasts with the president, whom Gingrich accused of representing values antithetical to "classical" America.

"It's not that I am a good debater. It's that I articulate the deepest-felt values of the American people," said Gingrich, who admitted at a Thursday debate to sometimes thinking in grandiose terms.

The evening's second-place finisher, Romney, drew on elements of his stump speech, but also started to preview rhetoric that will become part of his pitched case versus Gingrich in Florida's primary on Jan. 31.

"We're now three contests into a long primary season ... We've still got a long way to go, and a lot of work to do," Romney said in his remarks Saturday night.

Gingrich, Romney said, had joined Obama in launching a "frontal assault on free enterprise," referencing the ex-speaker's attack on Romney's record at Bain Capital.

"Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow," Romney said. "If Republican leaders want to join this president in demonizing success...then they're not going to be fit to be our nominee."

The results in South Carolina only raise the stakes for the battle in Florida, a traditionally expensive contest where voting is closed to only registered Republicans, and the winner is awarded all of the delegates.

The Romney campaign is hoping that contest will be its firewall. They appeared poised to make their argument versus Gingrich even more sharply in the state. They circulated a “flashback” video on Saturday reminding voters of the ethics investigation Gingrich had faced during his speakership.

The former speaker made reference to the next primary several times in his victory speech Satuday.

"With your help, we are now moving onto Florida and beyond," he said, later asking for supporters' help in reaching out to Floridians.

Gingrich, who will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday morning, hopes to capitalize there on his finish in South Carolina, which was driven in part by late deciders, who broke decisively in his direction in the last few days of the campaign. That stretch saw two debate performances by Gingrich, on Monday and Thursday nights. Almost two-thirds of voters said the debates were an important factor in their decision, and Gingrich won about half of them.

More broadly, core elements of the GOP base in South Carolina – conservatives, Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians – broke for Gingrich. And the former speaker even edged Romney in two important constituencies for the former Massachusetts governor: voters who said electability in November was their most important concern in a nominee, and voters who said the economy was their top issue.

The South Carolina results underscore Romney’s lingering inability to overcome skepticism from conservatives about electing him as their standard-bearer against Obama this fall.

RELATED: Conservatives, evangelical Christians rebuff Romney in South Carolina

Gingrich had erased Romney’s lead by abandoning his previous pledge to wage a “relentlessly positive” campaign. The former speaker eventually embraced a strategy of drawing strong contrasts with Romney and benefited from the negative advertising run on his behalf by a super PAC – a practice Gingrich loudly denounced in Iowa, where he saw his poll numbers collapse amid attacks by a pro-Romney super PAC.

His victory provides, if nothing else, a symbolic imprimatur; the winner of the South Carolina primary has gone on to win the nomination in each Republican primary since the contest’s inception in 1980.

The South Carolina results capped one of the most unpredictable weeks in the presidential campaign thus far, a week that saw two candidates leave the race and the veneer of inevitability the Romney campaign had built for itself erode by the end.

Watch Newt Gingrich's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday

Recertified results in the Iowa caucuses found that he had actually lost the contest by a handful of votes to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. And Romney has fought to withstand some of the most intense scrutiny he’s faced during the campaign; critics have assailed his private equity career and demanded Romney release his tax returns – demands which only reached a fever pitch after Romney estimated he pays an effective rate of 15 percent of his income in taxes.

Moreover, Romney’s performance in South Carolina will speak volumes about his fractious relationship with movement conservatives. He’s struggled at times to break through a ceiling on his support from those voters, who are skeptical of Romney’s past conversion on abortion rights and his embrace of authorship of a health care law as governor that closely resembles Obama’s 2010 reform law.

Nonetheless, the fact that Gingrich has arrived at the precipice of political resurrection – again – this cycle is itself remarkable.

Political observers had questioned when, not if, he would drop out after suffering missteps at the outset of his campaign that led to the defection of virtually all of his top staff last June. But Gingrich stuck with it and climbed to the top of the polls in Iowa, only to see his numbers implode again after weathering attacks from super PACs and Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign.

In South Carolina, the former speaker has been aided by a variety of factors contributing to his potential comeback. He’s scored major points with voters with a couple of strong debate performances this week, particularly by way of launching acerbic attacks on the media. His angry refusal to answer allegations made by an ex-wife topped headlines coming out of a debate on Thursday – the same day that saw Texas Gov. Rick Perry drop his own campaign and endorse Gingrich.

The winnowed field (Jon Huntsman also ended his campaign and endorsed Romney), only reduced the number of candidates threatening to divide the anti-Romney vote in South Carolina.

Santorum, crowned the winner of the Iowa caucuses upon further review of the vote totals, had doggedly criticized both Romney and Gingrich in hopes of rallying conservatives behind his unflashy, if consistent, record.

"Three states, three winners -- what a great country," he said in remarks Saturday evening, vowing to continue his campaign through Florida and subsequent nominating contests.

NBC’s Jamie Novogrod, Garrett Haake, Alex Moe and Andrew Rafferty contributed.

Jason Reed / Reuters

Republican presidential candidates former Senator Rick Santorum, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul participate in a Republican presidential candidates debate in Charleston, South Carolina, January 19, 2012.

Previewing tomorrow’s showdown in South Carolina… A Romney win would essentially end the GOP race… But a Gingrich victory extends it… Polls close tomorrow night at 7:00 pm ET… Bob McDonnell endorses Romney… A salute to Jan. 19!... Breaking down last night’s debate: Gingrich deflects the question about his baggage (his failed 2^nd marriage)… Romney raises even more questions about his baggage (those tax returns)… And Santorum has a very strong performance.

Read the original First Thoughts: Showdown in South Carolina

*** Showdown in South Carolina: Tomorrow’s Republican presidential primary in South Carolina will determine -- as Politico’s Martin put it yesterday -- if the GOP contest essentially ends or if it continues for the next several weeks or even months. A Romney win in a state where he finished fourth four years ago would make him the de facto nominee, proving that he can win in a conservative-dominated state, even if he benefits from a divided conservative vote. But with Newt Gingrich’s newfound momentum (his climbing poll numbers in South Carolina, his strong debate performances, the Perry endorsement), he finds himself in position to win this primary. And if that happens, the Republican presidential race will move on to Florida on Jan. 31 and beyond. Forty-eight hours ago, we all believed that Romney was about to make history, going 3-for-3 in the first three contests. But come Saturday, there’s the potential for another kind of history -- having three different Republican winners in the first three contests. That has never happened before.

*** Big stakes for Romney: As we wrote several days ago, Romney’s fundamental problem is this: He’s been unable so far to win over conservatives in a conservative state. And if he’s unable to beat Gingrich and Rick Santorum in South Carolina -- both of whom have their shortcomings -- it would send a flashing warning signal to party leaders. What’s more, it would produce chatter, fair or not, that the party needs to find someone else, just as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is set to deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union on Tuesday night. And chew on this: Did Team Romney make a mistake by playing so hard in South Carolina? As soon as his campaign gladly accepted Gov. Nikki Haley’s endorsement, it raised the stakes of a contest that was never going to be easy for him. In fact, it reminds us of what happened to Hillary Clinton there four years ago, when Bill Clinton was certain he was going to be able to help his wife in South Carolina and the Clinton campaign went all in. To paraphrase the immortal Admiral Ackbar, South Carolina can be a trap. Polls close tomorrow at 7:00 pm ET, and the GOP turnout in the 2008 primary there was 445,000.

*** Romney gets McDonnell’s endorsement: That said, Romney’s conservative -- and inevitability -- credentials got a major boost this morning when his campaign picked up an endorsement from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who’s a potential VP pick. Note that McDonnell’s endorsement comes a day after a fellow conservative governor, Rick Perry, dropped out of the GOP race. And do note that there are just two Republicans on Virginia’s primary ballot: Romney and Ron Paul. NBC’s Garrett Haake reports that McDonnell will appear with Romney on the campaign trail today in South Carolina.

*** A salute to Jan. 19: What a day in American politics yesterday turned out to be! First came the poll numbers showing Gingrich gaining on Romney in South Carolina. Then we found out that Rick Santorum -- and not Romney -- had won Iowa. Then Rick Perry dropped out of the GOP race and endorsed Gingrich. After that, ABC published its Marianne Gingrich story online. President Obama was in Disney World (!!!). The Republicans participated in their 17^th debate, which produced some fireworks (more on that below). And the day ended with Obama signing “Let’s Stay Together” at a New York City fundraiser.

*** Gingrich deflects the question about his baggage… : Speaking of last night’s debate, our biggest takeaway was this: Gingrich did a much better job of dealing with his baggage (Marianne Gingrich and her charge of Newt wanting an open marriage) than Romney dealing with his (those tax returns). Gingrich used the media as foil to deflect the issue -- “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that” -- and the crowd ate it up. As MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has noted, Gingrich channels resentment better than Romney does, and the politics of resentment can be a winner in Republican primaries, especially in the South.

*** ... while Romney raises even more questions about his: Meanwhile, for a second-straight debate, Romney struggled to explain why he hasn’t yet released his tax returns. When he was asked why he won’t release his taxes now, Romney gave this striking answer: Because I want to win. “I want to make sure that I beat President Obama. And every time we release things drip by drip, the Democrats go out with another array of attacks.” (Just asking, but doesn’t that suggest there’s something there? If he’s worried about attacks, then there is something to hide, right?) Romney also looked uncomfortable when he was told that his father released 12 years of his taxes in 1967. Folks, this issue isn’t going away. And whenever these tax returns come out -- if they do -- Romney and his campaign team have now guaranteed it to be a BIG moment in the GOP race. And it’s an unforced error by the campaign.

*** Santorum’s strong performance: Perhaps the best news for Romney at last night’s debate was Santorum’s VERY strong performance. As he’s done before -- but not as well as he did last night -- Santorum made the case that he’s the true conservative in the contest (on health care and social issues like abortion). And he was very aggressive; a man on a mission. Why was it good news for Romney? Because a strong performance by Santorum on Saturday has the potential of bringing down Gingrich’s numbers. The higher Santorum’s vote percentage, the better chance Romney has to win in South Carolina.

*** Other thoughts on the debate: Romney had a strong moment dressing down Gingrich’s tenure in Congress… Outside of Gingrich’s first five minutes responding to the Marianne Gingrich interview, he seemed to disappear for large stretches of the debate… The Romney campaign eagerly seized on Gingrich’s line about “grandiose thoughts”… And Ron Paul struggled to break through and get questions.

***On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: One day before South Carolina’s primary, Gingrich stumps in Charleston, Hartsville, and Mount Pleasant…Santorum hits Lexington, Fort Mill, Boiling Springs, and Charleston...Romney campaigns in Gilbert, Charleston, and Greenville…And Herman Cain (who dropped out of the presidential race) and Colbert (who is not on the ballot) will co-host a rally in Charleston.

*** Christie on “Meet”: NBC’s David Gregory will interview New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” 

Countdown to South Carolina primary: 1 day
Countdown to Florida primary: 11 days
Countdown to Nevada caucuses: 15 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 46 days
Countdown to Election Day: 291 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Jason Reed / Reuters

Republican presidential candidates former Senator Rick Santorum, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul participate in a Republican presidential candidates debate in Charleston, South Carolina, January 19, 2012.

Mitt Romney perpetuated one unsubstantiated claim, about his record at Bain Capital, and more or less corrected himself on another, about President Barack Obama's health care law, in the latest Republican presidential debate.

Vote: Should a candidate's private life be open for scrutiny? 

His rivals flubbed history, Newt Gingrich blaming a Democratic president for a jobless rate he never had, and Ron Paul painting an idyllic picture of life before Medicare that did not reflect deprivations of that time.

A look at some of the claims in the debate Thursday night and how they compare with the facts:

__—

ROMNEY: "We started a number of businesses; four in particular created 120,000 jobs, as of today. We started them years ago. They've grown — grown well beyond the time I was there to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises. ... Those that have been documented to have lost jobs, lost about 10,000 jobs. So (120,000 less 10,000) means that we created something over 100,000 jobs."

THE FACTS: Romney now has acknowledged the negative side of the ledger from his years with Bain Capital, but hardly laid out the full story. His claim to have created more than 100,000 jobs in the private sector as a venture capitalist remains unsupported.

Romney mentioned four successful investments in companies that now employ some 120,000 people, having grown since he was involved in them a decade or ago or longer. From that, he subtracted the number of jobs that he said are known to have been lost at certain other companies.

What's missing is anything close to a complete list of winners and losers — and the bottom line on jobs. Bain under Romney invested in scores of private companies that don't have the obligation of big publicly traded corporations to disclose finances. Romney acknowledged that he was using current employment figures for the four companies, not the number of jobs they had when he left Bain Capital, yet took credit for them in his analysis.

__—

GINGRICH: "Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the wrong regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs. We had inflation. We went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right job — the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs."

THE FACTS: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term.

Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election.

The economy did add 16 million jobs during Reagan's 1981-1989 presidency. Gingrich's assertion that "we created" them may have left the impression that he was a key figure in that growth. Although Gingrich was first elected to the House in 1978, his first Republican leadership position, as minority whip, began when Reagan left office, in 1989.

__—

PAUL: "I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early '60s, before we had any government (health care). It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded."

THE FACTS: Before Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, only about half of the elderly had private insurance for hospital care, and they were facing rising costs for those policies on their fixed incomes. Medicare was hugely contentious at the time, seen by many doctors as a socialist takeover, but few argued that the status quo could be maintained.

A Health, Education and Welfare Department report to Congress in 1959, during the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, took no position on what the federal government should do but stated "a larger proportion of the aged than of other persons must turn to public assistance for payment of their medical bills or rely on 'free' care from hospitals and physicians."

Paul advocates a return to an era when doctors would treat the needy for free. But even in the old days, charity came with a cost. Research from the pre-Medicare era shows that the cost of free care was transferred to paying customers and the insurance industry.

__—

ROMNEY: "I could have stayed in Detroit, like him, and gotten pulled up in the car company. I went off on my own. I didn't inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned. I worked hard, the American way."

THE FACTS: It's true there's no evidence Romney's wealthy family gave him a trust fund, or helped him secure a job at Bain Capital, where he would ultimately make his fortune. But it's not entirely the case that his success is wholly the result of his own hard work.

Romney's father, George, was an automobile industry CEO and a Michigan governor. He paid for Mitt to attend the Cranbrook School, a private boarding school in the Detroit area. The education didn't hurt Romney's ability to get into Harvard, where he earned law and business degrees in 1975.

While Romney appears to have gotten a job at Bain out of college on his own, the Boston Globe book "The Real Romney" reports that Romney's parents helped him and his wife buy their first home when he was in his early 20s.

On Thursday night, the Romney campaign did not dispute the finding that Romney's parents helped pay for that house, in the Boston suburb of Belmont.

__—

ROMNEY: "The executive order is a beginning process. It's one thing, but it doesn't completely eliminate Obamacare. ... We have to go after a complete repeal. And that's going to have to have to happen with a House and a Senate, hopefully, that are Republican."

THE FACTS: With that statement, Romney essentially corrected his repeated suggestions in early debates and speeches that he would eliminate President Barack Obama's health care law with a stroke of the pen on his first day in office — a power no president has.

In one variation of the claim, he had vowed in a Sept. 7 debate that on Day One, he would sign an executive order "granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states." This, despite the fact that the law lays out an onerous process for letting individual states off the hook from its requirements, and that process cannot begin until 2017.

Now he acknowledges the political reality that a Republican president would need Republican control of Congress to have a strong shot at repealing the law.

David Goldman / AP

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pauses while announcing he is suspending his campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012, in North Charleston, S.C.

Updated at 12:30 p.m. ET 

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced Thursday morning that he is dropping out of the presidential race and is endorsing Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination.

"There is no viable path forward for me," he told supporters on Thursday. "I gave fully of myself for a cause worthy of this country," he added. Perry said it was time for him to make a "strategic retreat."

Spokesman Ray Sullivan told reporters after the announcement that money was a factor; that the campaign had gone through "the bulk of our friends." He added that Perry is not yet ruling out running for re-election as governor or making another play for the White House in four years.

Of Gingrich, Perry said Thursday, "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" Perry continued, "There is forgiveness for those who seek God." He applauded Gingrich as "a conservative visionary who can transform our country." 

The former House speaker watched Perry's speech from his campaign bus, parked outside of Beaufort, S.C. He said he was "honored and humbled" by the endorsement. He called Perry a "great patriot."

Gingrich's candidacy has been boosted by strong debate performances, with another debate scheduled for Thursday. But he's likely to receive more unflattering attention when ABC News airs an interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich. In the interview, Marianne Gingrich says Gingrich asked her for an "open marriage" in which he could have both a wife and a mistress, and she refused.

Story: Gingrich ex-wife says he sought 'open' relationship

Perry's withdrawal and endorsement of Gingrich is a further sign that he's emerging as the main rival to Romney, who has failed to persuade many Republicans of his conservative credentials.

Perry had faced calls to drop out of the race to compel conservative voters, whose support has been divided among several conservative candidates, to rally behind Gingrich in hopes of stopping Romney. Recent polls show Gingrich gaining steam heading into the South Carolina primary, but he still trails Romney by about 10 percentage points.

Saturday's contest has been seen as the pivotal battle in the race, following what had initially been declared a narrow victory for Romney in Iowa, the first nominating contest, and a solid Romney win in last week's New Hampshire primary. Since 1980, no Republican has won the presidential nomination without a victory in the state.

But Republican officials said Thursday that Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, edged the former Massachusetts governor in Iowa by 34 votes, though no winner was declared because some votes remain missing.

Story: Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total

Perry entered the race last August to great fanfare and high poll numbers. But his standing quickly fell after a series of campaign blunders. During a nationally televised debate in early November, he could not remember the name of the third Cabinet department he had pledged to eliminate. "Oops," he told the audience. He later admitted of the gaffe, "I stepped in it."

Perry finished fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire and, at one at one point said he was going to go back to Texas to reassess his path forward, but then headed to South Carolina instead.

Recommended: Rick Perry slideshow

Perry made his announcement to withdraw from the race just hours before Thursday night's GOP debate. He was joined on stage by his wife Anita and son, Griffin, and stressed that the Republican Party "transcends any one individual."

He said that "the campaign has never been about the candidates," and lamented, "a calling never guarantees a particular outcome."