The media is taking bets on who will be next to leave the Republican pack.

Will he be the next GOP campaign dropout? Santorum finished fourth at Ames, worse even than Pawlenty, who said he needed a strong showing to maintain sufficient donor interest. The Minnesotan didn't get it and pulled the plug the next day on his substantial Iowa ground operation.

But Santorum had much less invested in Iowa, other than miles and time. And fourth place for him seemed better than expected. So he postponed his return to Pennsylvania and went to the Waterloo dinner to continue his quiet guerrilla struggle for support as a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in hopes that Perry and Bachmann somehow knock each other off.

Santorum pecks away at Bachmann much as Pawlenty did, for her alleged lack of congressional accomplishments, and at Perry for his seemingly diffident same-sex marriage stance.

Or what about Herman Cain, the pizza godfather? Probably not, not yet anyway.

I find it interesting to analyze the possible motivations for the second tier candidates to remain in the race. Abraham Lincoln ran for the first Republican nomination contest with the strategy of being everyone's second choice. He wasn't as well known as his rivals, but he figured correctly that the rabid supporters of one candidate were unlikely to throw in with another first tier candidate. By being second, he came out first.

The same strategy can't be replicated in the current contest because even the first tier candidates have relatively low core support in the teens. Nevertheless, there are some pretty obvious signs that Romney's strategy involves him keeping a low profile and focusing his criticism on the President rather than his rivals. It seems an eminently sound move. With the far-right of the party dividing their votes among many contenders, Romney can out-poll them even in a state hip deep in Evangelicals like Iowa.

Of course, that assumes that one of the more-nigh-to-Jesus-than-thou rivals doesn't break out to a solid lead.

Has that happened with Perry? Hard to say since little is known of the governor other than his resume. For those on the right, he is a significant stronger candidate than erstwhile darling Michelle Bachmann whose lack of experience is an objective fact. That might not have mattered to many who feel that ideological orthodoxy is more important than political and executive skills, but if you can have both--why not?

I'm not terribly impressed at this point for a few reasons. Strategically, he has very little need to emphasize his conservative credentials, so overheating the media with contentious and controversial comments is almost certainly a bad idea. Without having said a word, he polled at close to 30%. You protect a lead like that, you don't go out taking unnecessary risks. Perry has inherent weaknesses as well. The governorship of Texas is known to be a weak executive position, and Perry seems to have claimed too much credit for the Texas economy. He was also a Democrat until quite recently, which makes Romney's alleged flip-flopping look insignificant by comparison. His star will dim, but by how much?

The proximate effect though is to give Michelle Bachmann's campaign an anxiety attack. As the leading contender for the anti-Romney vote, she suddenly finds herself overshadowed by someone with all of her strengths and none of her weaknesses. Her "me too" statements on the Fed suggests that she will go after Perry with a vengeance. The Pawlenty-Bachmann show is over. Now we'll have the Perry-Bachmann show.

As the article suggests, Santorum and the other second tier candidates are waiting to pick the carcass of the loser. They'll be very careful not to alienate the supporters of either Bachmann or Perry, while touting their own qualifications. For them it's a question of time, meaning how much time do they have before the funding runs out or they catch a break? Apparently, a long time, since aside from Pawlenty and Bachmann, few other candidates have really invested all that much in Iowa.

So who leaves next?

I think Bachmann does, followed closely on her heels by Santorum and Cain. Iowa is where the conservative candidate is going to be anointed, and failing to achieve that, none of these rivals has any reason to continue.

Huntsman will continue because his raison d'etre is to be the second choice to Romney;and Perry--should he prevail in Iowa, isn't going to occupying that space. Gingrich goes on, because he wants Mike Huckabee's contract with Fox. I think he'd like to be President, but losing isn't a bad thing as far as he's concerned.

Ron Paul? Nobody cares.

After Iowa we get into a more interesting part of the nomination process. It's all about the far right now, but that's hardly the meaty part of the Republican party. In my opinion, this is where Romney organization makes the difference.

Look at me...I'm already thinking about New Hampshire.