It is therefore quite conceivable that Palin could win Iowa, Johnson New Hampshire, and the battle joined. ~Jack Ross

I appreciate Jack’s enthusiasm, but after the 2008 primary I stopped believing that New Hampshire is some sort of natural base of power for libertarian candidates on the Republican side. It’s not just that Ron Paul didn’t do very well there, but that John McCain won and Romney came second. What’s worse, McCain somehow managed to win the most antiwar votes of any Republican candidate, which confirmed that the war was not a priority for most primary voters on the Republican side in 2008. All of the reasons why New Hampshire should have been a place for Ron Paul to do very well proved to have little to do with the actual voting behavior of Republican primary voters. In the end, for all the talk of the more libertarian leanings of the state, libertarian candidates don’t fare that much better up there than they do elsewhere. Johnson might make a decent showing in New Hampshire, but it is hard to see how he wins there or anywhere else. Of course, winning primaries and delegates wouldn’t be the main purpose of a Johnson candidacy. The main purpose would have to be to present an alternative to the supporters of the warfare and national security state that dominate intra-party debates, and to challenge the other candidates to defend positions that they normally adopt without any resistance or criticism from within the party.

Given his connection to Massachusetts and the influence of the Boston media market on New Hampshire, Mitt Romney has to be considered the favorite in New Hampshire until someone takes it away from him. McCain performed as well as he did in 2008 largely based on the goodwill he had stored up with New Hampshire voters with his victory there in 2000. As the runner-up in 2008, Romney will be well-positioned to pick up McCain’s supporters and dominate the New Hampshire scene.