I'm beginning to think that having a solid organization or good "fundamentals" doesn't matter in this day and age. It's less about the ground game, and more about the soundbites put into the media. I mean, what else could account for Cain and Newt's rise? Newt's entire campaign team ditched him, and Cain loses top staffers every couple of months. Romney's had the strongest campaign team from the get-go, with electioneering veterans around him as well as large numbers of people in the swing states. Yet he can't shuffle past 30% nationally, and now in NH, his "safe" state, he leads by two. Unless this poll is an outlier, I would expect that whoever wins Iowa, wins New Hampshire.
Mostly agree, except with a few caveats:
If Romney wins Iowa, it doesn't matter. He'll still lose the overall election; the opposition to him will coalesce around whoever comes in second in Iowa.
If someone other than Gingrich or Romney wins Iowa, Romney will still win NH. NH's electorate is probably only amenable to voting for Romney, Gingrich or Huntsman (and maybe Paul). They wouldn't ever vote for Cain or Perry or Bachmann--not their style. Part of why Gingrich is such a threat to Romney is that he's not just cleaning up the anti-Romney vote. He also appeals to a lot of long-time Romney supporters because he's not as much of an unknown quantity as the other anti-Romney candidates.
