Paul wins Iowa, why would the other Not-Mitts drop out?

[Jacobtm]

So Paul wins Iowa, and it's assumed that Romney wins NH.

Obviously at that point, the race would look wide open, and SC wouldn't be too friendly to Paul or Mitt.

So Hunstman would be out after NH, but the conservative Not Mitt crew would all be thinking ''perfect, now we can go to ''real America'' and sell ourselves as the only alternative to these two traitors to conservatism''

After SC, I could see most of the losers dropping out, but why would Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, or Gingrich drop out before SC?

I see no reason.

[You kip if you want to...]

If Romney doesn't win Iowa, he's done... NH doesn't matter unless an ABM wins and Mitt doesn't win SC or FL without some force of momentum. Nevada, on the other hand, should slip to him.

It'll be Hillary all over again.

[Politico]

If Romney doesn't win Iowa, he's done... NH doesn't matter unless an ABM wins and Mitt doesn't win SC or FL without some force of momentum. Nevada, on the other hand, should slip to him.

It'll be Hillary all over again.

Paul winning Iowa would be more akin to Edwards winning Iowa in 2008 rather than Obama's win there. Iowa has always been a reach for Romney. Everybody realizes this. Romney has the resources to go the distance, and the only thing that could potentially scuttle his candidacy early would be an unthinkable loss in New Hampshire. Not going to happen.

If Romney wins Iowa, the nomination battle is over early. But it's definitely not over for Romney if he loses Iowa, or even comes in third place there.

Win or lose, Romney has a ticket out of Iowa. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Huntsman (and that is a huge longshot), Romney is the only one who can lose Iowa and still win the nomination.

[The Mikado]

I still see Santorum dropping (simply because he doesn't really have the resources to continue the campaign and has practically lived in Iowa for months now), but past that, not really.  If someone besides Paul wins, I see Bachmann joining Santorum in dropping.

[Averroës Nix]

I can't imagine that the Bachmann campaign has more than a negligible resource advantage over Santorum at this point. It's hard to imagine what she'd expect to accomplish by staying in the race, barring a top-3 finish.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If Romney doesn't win Iowa, he's done... NH doesn't matter unless an ABM wins and Mitt doesn't win SC or FL without some force of momentum. Nevada, on the other hand, should slip to him.

It'll be Hillary all over again.

Paul winning Iowa would be more akin to Edwards winning Iowa in 2008 rather than Obama's win there. Iowa has always been a reach for Romney. Everybody realizes this. Romney has the resources to go the distance, and the only thing that could potentially scuttle his candidacy early would be an unthinkable loss in New Hampshire. Not going to happen.

If Romney wins Iowa, the nomination battle is over early. But it's definitely not over for Romney if he loses Iowa, or even comes in third place there.

Win or lose, Romney has a ticket out of Iowa. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Huntsman (and that is a huge longshot), Romney is the only one who can lose Iowa and still win the nomination.

This isn't entirely the case. Some notes:

-Paul is probably the only Republican besides Huntsman who could beat Romney in New Hampshire barring a big gaffe on Romney's part. A win in New Hampshire would completely change the game and could very well cripple Romney. Even without that, a Paul vs Romney (possibly with a third candidate depending on South Carolina) campaign would be extremely fuzzy in terms of who wins what states (both compete for many of the same states, eg. Nevada, Maine). Each could probably motivate a strong minority in what would otherwise be the opposite's stronghold (Paul might be able to get the Muslims in Michigan to go out for him, while the Mormons could put up a good fight in Idaho for Romney).  However, it would probably work better for Romney in the long term (ignoring the instant-death scenario of his losing New Hampshire) than going against another candidate.

-Even assuming its Iowa-Paul and NH-Romney, I don't see a third candidate winning South Carolina. Unless they performed well in Iowa, I suspect it would split on the issues between Paul and Romney (Romney'd do better with the military workers while Paul could probably get support from the evangelicals). Its possible, through extremely heavy campaigning and/or a good performance in Iowa that a third person could win it, but I doubt it. After South Carolina, Florida is almost certainly in the hands of Romney barring an incredible Paul sweep or surprise Perry win in South Carolina.

-Ironically enough, a Paul win in New Hampshire would actually be a better reason for the Not-Mitts to stick around, since then Romney wouldn't be the automatic opponent and thus they'd have a niche to claim. Thus, you COULD have a Paul vs Perry scenario where Paul wins New Hampshire but loses South Carolina and Florida.

Seeing as how I can, here are some maps (Keep in mind that some of these would be close, could vary, and aren't winner-take-all):

Paul vs Romney, no third candidates left (Red is Romney, Green is Paul, grey is tossup):

Paul vs Perry (blue is Perry, green Paul, grey tossup):

Last but not least, Paul, Perry, AND Romney somehow coexist (this mostly ignores momentum, but whatever, also I did away with tossups and effectively flipped a coin for those):

[Link]

If Romney doesn't win Iowa, he's done... NH doesn't matter unless an ABM wins and Mitt doesn't win SC or FL without some force of momentum. Nevada, on the other hand, should slip to him.

It'll be Hillary all over again.

I don't understand.  You don't think Romney can pick up NH and Florida and roll on from there?  Paul could pick up Iowa.  Gingrich could pick up SC and Romney gets NH and Florida.  Why can't this scenario ultimately result in a Romney win at the convention.

[Likely Voter]

People drop out because they dont have any more money and Santorum and Bachmann are going to be broke by IA Caucus day. If either of them end up last (ahead of Huntsman), then they may have no choice but to drop out. Just like when Pawlenty lost the straw poll, his funding all dried up. Perry could probably hang on a bit longer because he has deeper pockets, but then again maybe all his money will be gone too.

[Bull Moose Base]

I have a feeling none will, no matter who wins.

[redcommander]

Because they all want this primary season to be the most hilarious and hectic in American history. Can you imagine the comedy of there possibly being a 3-4 candidate repeat of Clinton/Obama up till June? Also, I think they all possibly know that in the end Romney will win, and taking a page from the Democrats' playbook want him to defend himself and fight as hard as he can for the nomination so he will be a stronger candidate in the GE.

[Zarn]

They might stay, but I'm hoping for Paul vs Mitt. In that scenario, the debates might be higher than a 3rd grade level.