Looming question: Time to pack it in?

We don’t know whether Saturday’s Republican debate will alter the direction of the New Hampshire race. We don’t know if the polls are accurate. What we do know is that tonight a bunch of candidates will finish out of the top three spots. They may include some or all of the following: Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Recall that in Iowa, Carson f inished fourth, Bush sixth, Kasich eighth, Fiorina ninth and Christie 10th. The question for these candidates, if they don’t crack the top three in New Hampshire, is what rationale they could have for remaining in the race.

Carson will have had his best shot in Iowa; Christie, Kasich and Bush will have had their chance in New Hampshire. Christie, Kasich and Bush (and their super PACs) did not skimp on spending in New Hampshire. Fiorina chose to pout over her exclusion from the debate, but that would be no excuse for a bad loss. She was not remotely close to any of the entry criteria (third in Iowa or sixth in polls either nationally or from New Hampshire). If neither early state shows much interest in her, does she expect to win in bigger, more expensive states?

In the modern primary era, we have never seen a candidate who came in, say fifth and seventh in the first two states, go on to win the nomination. Ever. Indeed, since 1976 (the first year of the Iowa caucuses), on the GOP side the eventual nominee always has finished in the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Rational observers looking at such a state of affairs would readily conclude that where candidates have maximized efforts in the states most favorable to them and failed to gain any traction, continuing on would be highly unlikely to produce a different result. To the contrary, the results are likely to deteriorate as money dries up and they are perceived as nonviable candidates.

In addition to the order of finish, candidates need to consider the magnitude of their losses. If they have yet to hit double digits, it is hard to argue there is a felt need for their candidacy. From the point of view of family, staff and friends, the emotional, and in some cases financial toll, would be great as the losses piled up. Future hope of a Cabinet post or another presidential run would dim.

So what would be the rationale for continuing?

A favorite retort would be, “We have a national organization!” Wait. A national organization is there to extend one’s winning streak, to ensure one has the infrastructure so popularity in early states is not overwhelmed by an opponent’s superior resources. If they had their terrific organization in New Hampshire and/or Iowa and still lost badly, why would their national organization have any better luck?

Another argument for soldiering on would be to make sure that certain issues are “heard.” The issue in this case must be something more than the candidate’s own record and specif ic proposals (which already have failed to impress voters). Beyond that, is there really a case that major policy positions (pro- and anti-immigration reform, tax reform of various types, internationalist and less internationalist foreign policy, etc.) require advocates in the race beyond the first three candidates?

What about the value of having one governor stick around (if Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump are the top three in New Hampshire)? Questions about public-sector executive prowess are legitimate. If, however, voters in two states have dismissed executive public-sector experience as a necessity, it is hard to insist on forcefeeding them a steady diet of “you need to have experience making tough calls.” In any event, at most this is a rationale for the top-finishing governor moving on to South Carolina, provided he finishes in double digits tonight. That means one governor, no more.

So where does that leave us? If candidates who bombed in Iowa bomb in New Hampshire, there is no reason to think they will do better down the road. Ego or resentment is not a reason to stay in the race, especially if the candidate’s effort is reduced to attacking the other contenders. Even if desperate candidates want to continue on, donors and the party itself can force their hand.

Better, then, to go out gracefully as Rick Santorum, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Huckabee did than be known as someone who got humiliated in state after state and paved the way for a candidate like Trump.