Marco Rubio came out of Iowa with a third place halo and seems content to leave New Hampshire without a victory. I’ve long maintained that Trump is such a bad and unlikely candidate that he would not win a single primary and that may still prove accurate. But the reluctance of the Rubio and other campaigns to attack Trump strikes me as dangerous and foolish.

If Rubio does come in second to Trump, and that’s a bigger if than it was before Saturday’s debate, the race will move to South Carolina where two winners—Ted Cruz and Trump—will face off against two time second place finisher Rubio. Is it possible for Rubio to win South Carolina from this position? Yes, but obviously he would be greatly advantaged having won New Hampshire. In 1996, Lamar Alexander came in a strong third in Iowa that then became a disappointing third in New Hampshire. The race narrowed between the Iowa winner—Bob Dole—and the New Hampshire winner, Pat Buchannan.

In the long primary nominating process, to win you have to win. The danger for Marco Rubio—and all the candidates—is that March contests will be between those who have won the four earlier races: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Maybe Rubio pulls it out in Nevada, but that’s not going to be easy after losing the first three contests. If you haven’t won a race and others have, why should you be taken seriously going forward? Voters want to focus on fewer candidates as the race advances and doing okay is never quite good enough when others are winning.