The New Hampshire primary is tomorrow [ed.--day after tomorrow! Feb. 9], and unlike Iowa, it's a regular primary: no meeting in groups to caucus and schmooze with your fellow citizens before choosing a candidate. You just go and vote. This will favor Trump, whose ground-level organization has been fairly poor everywhere. Of course, Trump is favored in the polls, though it's worth emphasizing that despite leading in the polls here and elsewhere for many months now, he can barely crack the support of one-third of Republican voters; two-thirds still want someone else. So while Trump is expected to win New Hamphshire, the real action is who comes in second and third. New Hampshire, unlike Iowa, does not have a large bloc of evangelical Christian voters, which will be a problem for Senator Cruz from Texas; that, together with the Trump-generated perception of Cruz's dirty politics in Iowa and the doubts about his eligibility, will take the wind out of his sails, though I expect he will carry on through at least March 1.
New Hampshire has in recent cycles generally preferred so-called "moderate" Republicans, though there actually aren't any this time, unless you remember that given the freak show that is the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan would count as a moderate. The mindless journalists have taken to describing Senator Rubio as a "moderate," even though a simple comparison of his views with Senator Cruz shows how far to the right he is. Rubio is another Tea Party crazy, but unlike Cruz, he doesn't throw bombs and he doesn't grandstand quite as much: i.e., Rubio, when told by his masters not to shut down the government because it's bad for business, will listen. In a field of intellectual midgets, Rubio may stand out for being the biggest lightweight of them all, and his polish and poise may be wearing off. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls out a second place finish in New Hampshire. My bet is that the real action tomorrow will involve Governor Kasich of Ohio. Make no mistake: Kasich is extremely conservative, so much so that he'd look like a man from Mars in most other capitalist democracies. But in the current Republican field, he's easily the sanest: in Congress, he worked with Democrats on legislation; in Ohio, he took advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor; he has criticized Trump's and other's anti-immigration hysteria. If he finishes second or third, a few things are likely to happen: Bush will probably drop out; so will Christie (who stands no chance in South Carolina or Nevada without a really strong showing in New Hampshire, which seems very unlikely); Fiorina is likely to fold too. A lot of the supporters of these candidates are more likely to migrate to Kasich than to Trump, though Rubio may pick up some as well. Carson may linger on, but expect him to be gone before the big March 1 contests. (If, in fact, Bush captures third place in New Hampshire, then all bets are off again!) While Rubio will certainly be trucking on through at least March 1, his situation is going to be compromised if he doesn't win in South Carolina or Nevada; his best bet is Nevada, especially if, by then, the field is less crowded. But until the field thins, Trump will be able to carry on with his 30% of the support. Of course, the longer Trump and Cruz last, the better for the Democrats. I predict, however, that either Rubio or Kasich will get the nomination, and that Cruz will leave the race before Trump.
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Sanders has been the favorite to win New Hampsire, a neighboring state to his home, Vermont, for quite some time. If he doesn't, his campaign is over. But assuming he does, the real action will be in South Carolina and Nevada. If Sanders can not make significant inroads with African-American and Hispanic voters, so that he at least finishes a close second in those states, he's likely to be destroyed in the big March 1 primaries. Nevada is his best bet, given the significant role of labor unions on the Democratic side, and most labor union leaders and voters know full well whom they can trust as between Clinton and Sanders. I should note that Sanders is the only President candidate I've ever contributed to financially, and I will continue to do so as long as his campaign shows signs of life. I don't think he will end up with the nomination, alas, but his candidacy is far more important for other reasons. Recall that Reagan was a Presidential contender through several cycles before finally getting the nomination and winning the Presidency in 1980. The seeds planted by Sanders this year may grow to fruition in the future, if not this year: that, in any case, is my personal hope. And the longer he is in the race, the more Clinton will have to pivot to the left, including perhaps in her choice of running mate (it won't be Sanders, but it will likely be one of the Castro brothers from Texas). In any case, I expect Clinton to win South Carolina by a solid margin, and she may win Nevada too. Come March 1, her advantage in resources and name recognition will likely signal her clear path to the nomination. (Despite that sunny scenario for Clinton, I can't help but notice that the Clinton campaign seem sto be getting desperate judging from stunts like this. The idea that it represents a triumph of "feminism" to elect the wife of a former President is a bit much. Could it not be that young women, like young men, are genuinely fed up with the Reagan consensus represented by both Clintons?)