This article originally appeared on BIPAC.net. Written by Bo Harmon, Senior Vice-President, Political Field Divison of BIPAC.

On Monday morning before the first votes were cast in Iowa, Donald Trump held a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and a 15 point lead in South Carolina. If he had won Iowa, there was broad expectation that he would cruise on through New Hampshire and South Carolina on his way to wrapping up the GOP nomination. Now, there are dozens of scenarios of how the race could turn out, but Trump running the table is no longer one of them.

For the Democrats, Bernie Sanders has held a comfortable lead in New Hampshire for months and the expectations were that Hillary would win Iowa, lose New Hampshire and then blow on through, sweeping the other states, starting with South Carolina, where polls show her with a lead of over 25 points. It was neat and tidy. Now it isn't. Even though Hillary received a few more votes than Sanders, she had led by double digits for months there and a near-tie scrambles her plans.

And then there's the polling on which so much of the analysis and conventional wisdom had been based in the first place. Polling told us Trump and Clinton were narrowly but definitely in the lead in Iowa. It told us that a big turnout of new caucus goers favored Trump and Sanders because much of their appeal was with voters who had not been very politically active in the past. Turnout wasn't just big, it was, in Trump-speak, HUGE.  Over 180,000 Republicans attended the Caucus, 50% more than the previous record of 121,000 in 2012. Democrats had over 170,000, not as high as 2008 when 240,000 participated, but significantly higher than 2004 when only 125,000 turned out.  

So, we are faced with a muddled path to the nomination for each party and another blow to the validity of polling projections, making the future even murkier.

What we DO know is:

• Cruz's grassroots efforts were as good as advertised. He knew exactly who his supporters were and made sure they made it to the Caucus.
• Rubio helped himself tremendously by running a close third, just one point behind Trump. He essentially made himself the "establishment" alternative to Trump and Cruz before Bush, Christie, Kasich and others even got to New Hampshire where they have invested the most time and resources. This wouldn't be the case if he had finished third with 12% of the vote. Even if the other "establishment" candidates stay in the race, the voters will narrow it to a group of three in their minds.
• Trump has lost the air of inevitability and his opponents smell blood in the water. 
• Clinton has a clearer path to the nomination than anyone on the Republican side, but not as direct as it seemed Monday morning. 
• Our compass (polling) is supposed to help us see where things are going but isn't always pointing in the right direction.

What are the keys to look for in New Hampshire, which votes next Tuesday?

• Will Rubio's momentum solidify his role as the "establishment" candidate, dropping Christie, Bush, Kasich and others even further in the pack or will one of them challenge him for that designation?
• Will Trump's lead shrink in New Hampshire and South Carolina now that he isn't "inevitable" and for a candidate whose candidacy is largely built on "being a winner," when he didn't win his first contest?
• Will Hillary be able to blunt Sanders' expected victory in New Hampshire or does it lend him further momentum going into less friendly states in the coming weeks?
• Is polling a caucus just that difficult because of the wide variables in turnout and when we are looking at more traditional primaries we will have a clearer picture from polls of what is happening, or has the industry been locked into a model that just doesn't reflect modern political inputs? If polling leading into New Hampshire is pretty accurate, look for Iowa to be seen as an aberration. If it is off as much as it was in Iowa, look for people to search out new methods to read the tea leaves in these early nominating states.

It was an eventful night with a lot of passion on all sides and the results could have led to a very straightforward nomination process on each side, but they didn't.  It made things as messy as ever and, possibly, without the future benefit of even being able to rely on polling to give a peek into what is happening on the ground.