How Bernie Can (Still) Win and how "Northeast" Tuesday could make or break that effort

After Hillary's resounding win in the New York Primary, the Bernie Campaign's viability is on the ropes. And the upcoming Primaries on Tuesday, April 26th could all but eliminate Bernie as a viable contender. His campaign has long used the argument that the upcoming liberal blue Northeast and West Coast states will be where his greatest strength lies- and the five upcoming primaries on Tuesday all fit that heavy blue description.

News outlets are saying Bernie must win 59% of the remaining delegates to win the majority of Pledged Delegates- this is a roughly correct assessment. It will not be easy. The Sanders campaign has acknowledged that they will need Super (Unpledged) Delegates to agree to support their campaign in order to win.

For a quick review, Pledged Delegates are awarded based on the popular vote of each state, representing 85% of the total delegates to the Democratic convention. Super or Unpledged Delegates are party officials and represent 15% of the total delegates to the convention. Because the contest between Hillary and Bernie is so close, BOTH campaigns will almost certainly need the help of Super Delegates to clinch the nomination.

In the previous post, I made the case that Super Delegates behave as fail-safes in the event of a close contest (like this one) to prevent the Party from fracturing and give the nomination to the candidate with the mandate from the voters. In 2008 they did just that: despite Hillary Clinton being the Party insider (and originally endorsed by the large majority of Super Delegates), once Barack Obama pulled ahead Supers defected to his campaign. In summation of that previous post, here's what it would take (in two steps) for Bernie to earn Super Delegate support and replicate Barack Obama's 0.1% victory over Hillary in 2008. The first hurdle that he must overcome is to get a majority of pledged delegates. The second is far MORE difficult: earn the highest share of the popular vote. For more, please read the previous post.

Now that Wisconsin, Wyoming, and New York have voted, I did some deep number crunching to offer below the contest-by-contest targets (based on fivethirtyeight's demographic model) that Bernie MUST make in order to win the majority of Pledged Delegates and the majority of the popular vote.

How to read the following: CT 58% (32)     +115,000
For the contest in Connecticut Bernie needs to win 32 delegates representing roughly 58% of the vote in order to be on track to get a majority of Pledged Delegates. To be on track to win the popular vote he must get 115,000 MORE votes than Hillary in that state.

CT 58% (32)      +115,000

DE 55% (11)      +29,000

*MD 51% (48)   +65,000

*PA 58% (110)  +390,000

RI 62% (15)       +67,000

*IN 61% (50)      +210,000

GU 57% (4)         Caucus**

*WV 67% (19)   +107,000
*KY 58% (32)    +115,000

OR 69% (42)      +252,000

VI 57% (4)          Caucus**

*PR 57% (34)     Caucus**

CA 58% (275)    +934,000

MT 71% (15)      +92,000

*NJ 55% (70)     +197,000

NM 61% (21)     +86,000

SD 69% (14)      +80,000

ND 70% (13)      Caucus**

DC 46% (9)       -4,000

Total: 58.43% (818) Delegates +2,735,895 Popular Votes
*Key contests that I believe to be particularly unlikely to render the accompanying result.
**The remaining caucuses have negligible numbers of votes remaining, due to the low turnout at caucus sites.

The first five contests all take place this Tuesday (tomorrow) and represent about a quarter of the remaining delegates available, and about a quarter of the delegates Bernie would need to win. If Bernie loses all or most of them, his chances of winning the majority of pledged delegates becomes very slim indeed, perhaps needing a 30+ point victory in California or some other miracle to put him back on track. In fact, using this model, the only contest Bernie can "afford to lose" is the District of Columbia.

Remember: Bernie Sanders is undoubtedly favored in several of the remaining states- particularly out west: the Dakotas, Montana and Oregon. But at this point he needs to win those states by landslide margins in addition to netting the other wins to be on track for the nomination. As far as this Tuesday is concerned, it will not be enough to squeak out wins in Connecticut or Rhode Island while major Delegate hauls in Pennsylvania go for Hillary. Anything other than significant wins (except in Maryland) this Tuesday will be a strong signal that the support for Bernie is simply not high enough in most of the bluest of blue states. If so, it would undermine Bernie's central argument that once northern blue states start voting, he'll do much better. 

Without significant wins tomorrow, every win in the remaining contests can constitute a moral victory for his campaign, but it will almost certainly not be enough to claim a mandate from the voters.

Still, Bernie has made it clear that he will continue to fight until the final votes are cast, particularly in California where he is hoping for a moral victory. His influence at the convention could be relative to how well he performs in the remaining states, and the movement that he started may win significant concessions in the official Democratic Party Platform which will be developed at the convention. Even if Bernie is eliminated as a viable contender for the mandate from voters, he could have tremendous sway in the Democratic Party- especially if his energized base continue to be motivated to vote for him. The contest of ideas will go on far past this contest of personalities. Voting will be a part of that, but for those who are interested in keeping the Bernie or Birdie movement alive, the fight may soon have to shift away from the Democratic Nomination.

How Bernie Sanders Can Win

The Hillary campaign says it's over. Almost the entirety of the Democratic Party's membership in elected office has coalesced around Hillary. Some media narratives indicate that the nomination is a foregone conclusion- ready to write the retrospective on his campaign; perhaps opining that next time will be different.

The Bernie campaign begs to differ, saying that he has a viable path to the nomination with the momentum to carry his campaign forward. Social media and liberal outlets have been abuzz for weeks about how Bernie can and will win, how the MSM (mainstream media) has it wrong and is blacking out coverage (to say nothing of conspiracy theories that Democratic Party officials might be undermining the Sanders campaign). Meanwhile, a common outrage in the Bernie camp is that Super Delegates are actively stealing the election.

Which side is correct? Well, no conspiracies today. Let's start by getting some facts about delegates out of the way.

Pledged Delegates roughly represent the popular vote of the Democratic Primaries in each state. 85% of all delegates who vote to elect the Democratic Nominee are Pledged. Hillary Clinton has won about 55% of Pledged delegates in voting so far and about 43% of Pledged Delegates remain to be awarded.

Unpledged Delegates (Super Delegates) are party office holders, DNC officials, and important party personalities. These individual Super Delegates comprise 15% of all delegates who select the Nominee. They are not bound by the popular opinion of their state and can vote as they please. About 70% of Super Delegates have already publicly declared their support for Clinton and less than .05% support Sanders. The remaining 30% are publicly neutral. However, Super Delegates can (and do) change their minds and swap to supporting a different candidate before the Convention (more on this later).

So can Super Delegates steal the election away from the candidate with the clear mandate from voters?

They are highly unlikely to do so. Super Delegates have never "stolen" an election since the creation of the modern party primary (popular vote) nomination process. But Supers have historically used their role as a failsafe (to prevent the kind of Trump chaos happening right now in the GOP with a looming contested convention) stepping in to help the party come together around the eventual nominee and choice of the voters. So the key for Bernie? Establishing a clear mandate from the voters.

The first step in that process would be to win the majority of Pledged Delegates. Even in that case, Bernie would almost certainly need the help of Super Delegates to have enough votes to clinch the nomination (as would Hillary). If Hillary were to win the popular vote but Bernie were to win the Pledged Delegate total, Super Delegates might be inclined to step in on Hillary's behalf (difficult to argue with the majority of voters). The best option for Bernie to ensure the support of Super Delegates would be to win the national popular vote and establish the clear mandate.

Let's take a look at what would need to happen for Bernie to accomplish that feat in the remaining contests.

For the sake of argument, let's use a recent poll (conducted by the polling wizard Ann Selzer) which is one of the most friendly polls available to support Bernie's case that he's gaining momentum. (Other polls are not nearly so kind in their assessment of Bernie's support.) After splitting the tiny percentage of undecideds, we have a reasonably close snapshot of the race as it currently stands.

Bernie CURRENTLY has about 48.5% of the support in states which have yet to vote, and Hillary has 51.5%. Assuming this snapshot of the race is true, Bernie would have to win 10 points of Hillary supporters or about 20% of current Hillary supporters in those states over to his side. Converting 20% of Hillary supporters would likely be a pretty substantial task, given the amount of time that Democratic Primary voters have had to get acquainted with the candidates and make up their minds.

But let's suppose...

IF Bernie were to win over about one in five of current Hillary supporters in the roughly half of the population yet to vote, he would (if we take this poll as accurate) win about 58.5% of the outstanding popular vote. That number, roughly, also corresponds to the number of popular votes Bernie would need to rack up to win the overall national popular vote. We can project that number to be between 57% and 62%, depending on exactly how high voter turnout will be (and using the not-quite-right assumption that remaining delegate totals correspond roughly to remaining popular vote). Can't stress enough: This is a rough estimate based on previous states and previous voting turnout patterns so far in 2016.

But IF Bernie were to win that percentage of the remaining popular vote (>57.3%) he would be essentially guaranteed to win the most Pledged Delegates as well, since he already outpaces his popular vote percentage in delegate totals. For context, Bernie has won about 42% of the national popular vote and about 45% of the nation's Pledged Delegates. This is due to his success in low-turnout Caucus states that reward candidates with high proportions of delegates compared to the number of people voting.

Here's where the Super Delegates come in. Some of the more conspiratorial folks may be convinced that Supers will steal the election away from Bernie, even IF he wins all of these things: Pledged Delegates and Popular Vote. It is true that Super Delegates theoretically have the power to do such a thing. But with the numbers we just gave to Bernie, he would have vote totals that look very similar to Barack Obama's numbers in the 2008 primary where Super Delegates famously defected en masse from Hillary Clinton (the establishment favorite), in order to allow Barack Obama to win the nomination. In that scenario Obama had won the popular vote by only 0.1% (seriously); hardly an unequivocal mandate from the people. Hillary Clinton exploited this, hoping that Super Delegates would decide that in SUCH a contested environment, she was still the best candidate to represent the party. And yet the Super Delegates knew that the voters had spoken, and to deny our current President the Nomination at such a stage would be a disenfranchisement of the people.

I firmly believe that IF Bernie were to replicate Obama's 2008 numbers (even winning by 0.1%), Super Delegates would recognize the clear mandate, defect from Hillary (again), and Bernie Sanders would win the Democratic nomination. At this stage (in this scenario) he would have had unequivocally commanding momentum coming into the nomination, winning the final states like California by huge (uuuuuge) double digit margins.

But... NONE of this is YET reflected in any current polling; at best Bernie is tied in big upcoming states like California and New York. Remember, 1 in 5 of expected Clinton voters would need to change sides for this fantastic scenario to materialize. It's not impossible. The polls could be wrong. Hillary's support might be more soft than anticipated. There could be a sudden shake-up involving the FBI email investigation. Something else unexpected could intervene. But in the meantime...

Moral of the story: Bernie's campaign and supporters have their work cut out for them. Bernie would need to win almost all the remaining contests and not just win them- win them convincingly. He is out of time for narrow wins and near-ties. On par he probably needs between 57% and 62% of the remaining popular vote. Bernie needs to win BIG to establish a clear mandate, replicating a semblance of Hillary's winning percentage in populous diverse states like Florida (heard anything recently about NY and Cali?). As you watch Wisconsin tomorrow and other states down the line, if you notice Bernie failing to hit close to those 57%-62% winning percentage benchmarks, you'll understand why political pundits have said that his campaign has little likelihood of winning, even with many narrow wins down the stretch.

But it's still possible. Democratic voters: Your move.

The Gingrich shift has come

The tactical movement that I was talking about in last night's post seems to have arrived. Gingrich's entreaties to the electorate appear to have been successful and voters are now tactically coalescing around his candidacy to defeat Mitt Romney. Or maybe they love him now.

A couple events occurred today that have changed the conventional wisdom regarding the SC primary. First, Rick Perry has dropped out of the race, endorsing Newt Gingrich. While this might not seem to directly help Gingrich's campaign (Perry wasn't commanding much support anyway), it does deliver a blow to Santorum's floundering candidacy, as he struggles for legitimacy against Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Second, in several polls released today, Gingrich's support has jumped 10 points, exactly the margin of Romney's former polling lead. That ties him with Romney and brings the momentum solidly into his camp.

This is similar to what we saw in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with the final week to the vote showing a sudden rise in support for one specific candidate. In New Hampshire, that was Jon Huntsman, although his solid third place finish wasn't enough to keep his campaign going. In Iowa, however, voters seemed to be behaving tactically, rallying around the one conservative alternative to Mitt Romney-- they picked Santorum while Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry saw their chances weaken significantly.

Like in Iowa, the Gingrich rise in SC has corresponded to a drop in polling for the other 'mainstream' candidates- this time, Santorum and Perry and Romney- rather than a sudden disappearance of undecided/other voters. I won't include Ron Paul because his numbers were relatively steady in Iowa and now in SC as well. Let's take a look at the others.


Rounded average of 5 polls released Monday-Wednesday according to RCP:

Romney: 34%, Gingrich: 22%, Santorum: 15%, Perry: 5%, Undecided: 10%

Rounded average of 4 polls released today:

Romney: 31%, Gingrich: 32%, Santorum: 12%, Perry: 4% Undecided: 8%


Needless to say, if this trend continues in the next two days, and if undecideds break for Gingrich rather than Romney, Gingrich will probably win the upcoming Saturday primary, especially if Perry voters turn to Gingrich. However, if undecideds break for Romney, Gingrich's momentum probably isn't enough. A lot may hinge on the debate tonight, which will focus on the last four candidates standing. Much attention will be concentrated on Gingrich's sudden rise; the other candidates will probably be desperate to bring Gingrich down, so the attacks may focus away from Romney. If Gingrich can hold his own, there are a lot of ads on the SC airwaves tearing Romney down, mainly from his Super PAC,


Overall, this is great news for Gingrich. We'll see if he can hold, or improve on his position in the next two days. Either way it looks like he'll do well enough, even if Romney wins by a slim margin, to continue on past SC. Santorum maybe not so much. Ron Paul should also be celebrating this development. His numbers are still impressive relative to what they have been in SC, and a three-person race is one that will probably elevate his profile by lowering the winning threshold in upcoming states. Moreover, some states have a winner take all delegate process, but only if one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, otherwise it's proportional. A three way split would allow Paul to rack up more delegates while holding out for a chance for a brokered convention, where he could really exercise his clout.

It's Gingrich or Romney... but can it be both?

The upcoming South Carolina Primary is ultimately down to two candidates, reflecting the national race: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

After an expectedly strong New Hampshire win, Mitt Romney has capitalized on his triumph by blazing into South Carolina with wind at his back, hoping to finish off his remaining opponents quickly. Since then, Romney has been sitting on a 10 point lead in the state as his four opponents divy up the remaining vote. It is still looking likely that Mitt Romney will pull out a win in South Carolina, but there is one opponent who I have consistently said will provide the strongest opposition to Romney in SC: Newt Gingrich.

Being a Southerner from neighboring Georgia, Gingrich has always had a reasonably strong regional sway in SC, brought to fruition during his surge in November. Since that time, Gingrich's numbers have slipped, making way for a modest post-Iowa Santorum jump and giving enough of a boost to Romney to push him solidly into the lead. Still, Gingrich's position is the most formidable of Romney's potential adversaries in this primary, and this offers him the best chance of an upset Saturday night.

In a recent post, I pointed out that wise, conservative anti-Romney voters should consolidate around Gingrich. It's easy to see why: Rick Perry continues to baffle by remaining in the race despite relentlessly tepid support, and Rick Santorum, despite winning the support of a gathering of evangelical leaders over the weekend... also maybe sort-of kind-of didn't? Either way, Santorum probably won't see a major bounce from a divided endorsement (although we shall soon see), and probably isn't quite the right fit for SC voters, having been a Senator from Pennsylvania and voting against a 'Right to Work' law, a potentially contentious issue in SC (among other issues for which he is being attacked). Ron Paul's libertarianism probably isn't going to play well in the critical Bible Belt region in SC either, and will be fighting with Santorum for 3rd or 4th place. Meanwhile, Gingrich's most recent debate performance has been lauded, and may even be giving him some momentum in the state. All this combines to entice some South Carolina GOP voters to behave tactically to defeat Romney (even if they prefer another candidate, a voter might rather have Gingrich than Romney)- if that were to happen it might give Gingrich a last minute boost like Santorum received in Iowa. It certainly doesn't hurt that Sarah Palin has asked SC voters to tactically vote for Gingrich. Polls are not yet reflecting such a tactical decision by voters, however, and now's the time when Gingrich would need to be seeing movement.


So now we return to the question I posed in the title of this post. Romney's still the strong favorite in South Carolina, so if he wins, even with a solid second place Gingrich showing, what happens next?

Well we know that Ron Paul is in it for the long haul no matter how he places; his campaign has been setting up infrastructure in states far beyond SC, and the candidate himself has been campaigning in Nevada before the SC primary. Santorum is counting on a very strong showing in South Carolina but it's hard to know how much further his campaign can go with a 3rd or 4th place finish. Then again, it has been surprising that Rick Perry has still remained in the race- though I'd guess the odds are good that he'll decide to throw in the towel in the next week... I think.

Gingrich has said to news media that South Carolina is a must win state for him, so if he doesn't win, will he drop out? Can Romney and Gingrich carry their battle on into the other upcoming states, or has Gingrich bet all his campaign resources in SC? Seeing as how there are good odds that one or more other candidates will drop out after SC, will that change Gingrich's calculus? Certainly if Romney loses he will continue on, but it will be interesting to watch what the Gingrich campaign does if their candidate places second. The critical question they'll be asking: is there a path forward from here? Romney's lead in Florida is probably insurmountable if he wins in South Carolina, so in that case can Gingrich play in Nevada and beyond? The answer, I think, is yes, as long as it is a neck and neck SC finish and/or Perry and Santorum drop out. If not, it's hard to say.

Of course, a scenario is possible in which every candidate but Ron Paul and Mitt Romney drops out after South Carolina. That would also seriously change the dynamic of the race.

I won't attempt to answer these questions because I don't have information on campaign finance and infrastructure at my fingertips, but I can say this: the key to the importance of the SC GOP primary lies in how well Newt Gingrich can do as those returns come in Saturday night.

Watch for a Huntsman surprise in NH

In my post yesterday I discussed Jon Huntsman's New Hampshire prospects with positive coverage, suggesting that he was most likely to achieve a third place finish in the Granite State. As polls and commentators are suggesting, Huntsman has the momentum in New Hampshire and this could result in a surprise finish in that state. As I pointed out yesterday, a victory of 15% or more would probably constitute a surprise finish in the eyes of the news media since Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich had been seen as running neck and neck with Huntsman.

But with some last minute polls (like this one) now showing Huntsman in the mid to high teens, he has a real chance at a spectacular finish: this would mean beating Ron Paul for second place in New Hampshire or coming close to it. Now I won't get too far into the odds between Paul and Huntsman, since I have been bullish regarding both of their campaigns in NH, but even now the most likely outcome in my opinion still would show Huntsman behind Paul. But these things, of course, are very hard to predict.

I think that both Paul's and Huntsman's campaigns could beat expectations in the contest tomorrow, but I'd guess that Huntsman very likely will. Remember, Huntsman needs at least a strong third place finish (15% or better) to have any significant chance of shaking up the race. Even if he does significantly better than this benchmark (which I think will happen), it's no guarantee that he will be able to play in South Carolina. Florida, the next state to vote, is a better option for Huntsman, particularly if he can split the vote with Paul and Gingrich who is also doing well there.

For this to Florida environment to happen, Gingrich probably needs to beat Santorum in NH and finish 1st or 2nd in SC. I think the chances of this scenario occurring are a little better than a coin flip, since I have repeatedly discussed my skepiticism regarding Santorum's chances in NH and SC. However, I'm not confident enough of that outcome to make any prediction; Santorum is showing more robustness than I expected so far- we'll just have to watch what happens.

This is certainly an exciting time for the Huntsman campaign. When the votes are counted tomorrow night, you'll know not to be too surprised by a Huntsman surprise.

The value of New Hampshire

With Rick Perry and Mitt Romney making no secret of neatly skipping down to South Carolina to campaign during the one week between the Iowa and NH caucuses, it's worth questioning the true value of the New Hampshire primary for the candidates still in the game.

Michele Bachmann is out of the race; a smart choice after a disappointing finish in Iowa. Rick Perry is polling at 1% in NH; so there is no value in campaigning in NH for Perry. Romney, meanwhile, is sporting a 20+ point lead in New Hampshire, and has been in South Carolina trying to lock up the nomination with three victories in a row.

So for whom does New Hampshire matter? Time to bring in our three "must watch" candidates from my analysis of the race over a month ago.

Ron Paul is almost certainly going to get second place in New Hampshire, behind Mitt Romney. His views are a natural fit for New Hampshire and he has been very slowly gaining traction. He sits at around 20% in the polls. The stakes are high for him for two reasons. 1) Paul is unlikely to do this well in any other state. The specifics of the Iowa and New Hampshire electorate have offered Paul his best opportunity to get better than 20% of the vote outside of the Mountain West. Paul got 21% of the vote in Iowa; he must perform even better than that in NH in order to elevate his profile and surprise the pundits. 2) The closer he can come to Romney, the more potential upside there is to NH; the further away he is, the more the pundits will be focusing on who they see as the real contenders (everyone else). If Romney retains his 20 point lead, the conventional thinking on Paul's national viability (specifically, his lack thereof) will not be questioned, but if Paul somehow manages to close the gap with Romney in a meaningful way, he could begin to change the debate. 

Unfortunately, Paul is making what seems to me to be a terrible mistake in his campaign strategy. Besides Romney, Paul is the only candidate with the national infrastructure and national funding to fight a prolonged battle for the nomination. As I have mentioned in previous posts, my opinion is that Paul's best chance at having influence (or even being nominated) at the convention is to enter a brokered convention with as many delegates as possible. To do that, he needs more than a 2-man race. Against Romney, Paul doesn't really have a chance with the GOP electorate at large; his views are just too out of step to ever manage a majority. His best bet is to try to allow as many non-Romney candidates to survive for as long as possible, since the other candidates are unlikely to cut into Paul's specific category of libertarian support. Therefore, his main opponent and focus of all attacks should be his most dangerous adversary: Romney.

But for some reason, Paul's strategy has been to break down every candidate except Romney. He's gone after Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in TV ads, and spent yesterday night's debate squabbling with Rick Santorum over which one of them was the true conservative. Mitt Romney, sitting back and watching his weaker rivals fight with one another, merely sat back and put on his "oh, children, please do calm down" face. If Ron Paul was a more conventional candidate with a wider base of support like Newt Gingrich, this strategy would be very wise, but he's not. Perhaps his campaign truly believes that a Romney vs Paul debate would be great for the country and could rally the anti-Romney vote to Ron Paul. Or perhaps Paul is behaving passionately rather than tactically- that wouldn't be surprising for someone like Paul. Or perhaps again, I could be really underestimating Paul's GOP appeal. Either way, as I see it right now, Romney couldn't have asked for a better environment from his best funded and organized opponent.


For Rick Santorum, the stakes are obvious. He got a great boost coming out of an essential tie with Romney in Iowa; his numbers in NH immediately shot up to around 10%. He will be jockeying for third place with Huntsman and Gingrich. There's two major factors to watch with Santorum. 1) His overall position: ideally third place to acquire adequate momentum moving into SC. If he does manage third place, it will still give him a great media boost, since it will still represent a great showing relative to expectations. 2) His position relative to Gingrich. Gingrich and Santorum are fighting for viability in New Hampshire. If Gingrich does better than Santorum, something I had expected only a week ago but now is unclear, Gingrich can make the case that he's the best anti-Romney candidate. Santorum, therefore, must do as well as or better than Gingrich to prove that he can be a serious contender.

And finally, Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has staked his whole nomination battle on New Hampshire, and in my opinion he needs a third place finish there to have a chance at battling on the national stage. Even with a third place win, it'd take something big happening to offer Huntsman a chance at winning the nomination. For example, if Gingrich dropped out after NH and endorsed Huntsman, that might shake up the battle enough to give Huntsman a solid chance. The chances of a game changer for Huntsman are not good, but it's obviously enough to keep him in the race so far. Anyway, if I had to guess, I'd say that Huntsman has the best chance at a third place finish in NH (he has a great ideological structure for the NH independent electorate)- if he can mange to surprise with 15% of the vote or more, his position would look even better.

For my part, I'll be rooting for Huntsman. I think he has the best resume of all of the contenders and reasonable positions, but also hope to justify my mentionings of him on this blog.


A final note on Newt Gingrich. I think conservatives would be wise to put their support behind him rather than Santorum, since I believe that his national viability is still better than Santorum's is. I also think Gingrich can play better overall in S.C. and Florida than Santorum. Both of them have some mess in their records, and we have yet to see how the digging in Santorum's past will play out, so Santorum is also the more potentially risky candidate. But whoever anti-Romney voters choose, they'd better be careful: Romney is just a few weeks away from closing this thing down if conservatives can't make up their mind. Of course, that's exactly what Romney's hoping for. He's run an appropriately cautious, hard hitting, and smart campaign... and apparently to the victor goes the spoils.

But it's not quite time for that yet. New Hampshire still has great value in understanding where things will go next, so we'll just have to wait and see what the voters tell us on Tuesday. And if you live in New Hampshire and are registered for it, make sure to vote!

Rick Perry vs Newt Gingrich

As polling is looking increasingly likely that Rick Santorum will place in the top three in Iowa, one of the most important aspects of the race to watch in the final days is actually farther down the list from the frontrunners.

As I have mentioned in my recent article- discussing the atmosphere that a strong Gingrich campaign brings to a Ron Paul candidacy- only two candidates have the real significant strength (at this moment) to wage a significant campaign against Paul and Romney past Iowa and New Hampshire, especially absent a major drop out and/or defection from one of the other current candidates. Those two candidates are Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Perry 'cause he has the money, and Gingrich 'cause he has the national polling numbers.

Neither of these two candidates is likely to drop out after Iowa, as long as their showing isn't stunningly abysmal- like getting much less than 10% of the vote. For perspective, 15-20% would represent a good showing.

Therefore a key aspect to watch this coming Tuesday will be which of the two candidates, Gingrich or Perry, does better, and by how much. In recent conversations with friends I've been fairly bullish on Perry recently, expecting him to offer a surprise showing for the current expectations (but probably not a top three finish). With all the negative attacks against him, Gingrich seems to be continuing his downward slide, so if Perry can beat Gingrich and even perform near Santorum's level, he may be able to re-assert himself as the 'establishment' (meaning that the national party leaders could easily get behind him) conservative alternative to Romney.

Expectations for Perry in NH are all but nothing, so he'll move directly on to South Carolina after Iowa. Of course then he'll have to convince voters that he's a better choice than Santorum, going forward. If Santorum, whose campaign has indicated an interest in competing in New Hampshire, fails to garner a solid finish there, Perry's argument may be made for him. South Carolina should have some natural regional play for Perry.

But what about Gingrich? Previous polling has indicated that his most solid bases of support are the 3rd and 4th contests; South Carolina and Florida respectively. If he finishes close to- or ahead of- Perry in Iowa, Gingrich's campaign could attempt to make a comeback with a respectable placement in New Hampshire. All he needs is a win (or close to it) in South Carolina to put him back on track. Of course, like I just pointed out, this is also true of Perry.

There is something to be said for the lack of establishment enthusiasm for Gingrich; it's probable that a good Perry showing in Iowa would do more for Perry than if his place was switched with Gingrich. Perry is seen as having less baggage than Gingrich, and seen as being a solid campaigner (if not debater- although his recent performances have been adequate). This also has to do with expectations: Gingrich, until recently, was expected to win the Iowa caucuses; Perry has been weak in polling for weeks now. 

If neither of the two manages to put in a surprise showing, Romney may have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. It's hard to see Bachmann or Santorum managing to upset Romney in the long run like Perry or Gingrich could, mainly because Gingrich and Perry are likely to be persistent for at least the next few contests, regardless of their placement. However, if Bachmann or Santorum ended up in 5th or 6th place, I don't know how well their campaigns could continue functioning. (This is a rhetorical example, since Santorum at least is likely to place in the top three)

Ultimately, what I am trying to say is this: The outcome of the lower tier placement in the Iowa caucuses will matter just as much as the top tier finalists for the long term outlook of the Republican nomination. And the contrast between the placements of Perry and Gingrich, particularly if it is stark, is likely to be very telling.