The New Hampshire presidential primary is just a few days away and Donald Trump has held a double-digit lead there for the past 30 weeks. Historically, this is the most important early primary in the country; of the last 20 winners of the New Hampshire primary, 15 went on to win their party’s nomination. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum won the last two Iowa Republican caucuses, but lost New Hampshire and ultimately the nomination.

John H. Sununu once said that Iowa picks corn and New Hampshire picks presidents. However, George W. Bush and Bob Dole both won Iowa, lost New Hampshire and still went on to win the GOP nomination. Going back to 1976, Iowa and New Hampshire have split the GOP nominee choice six times. In two cases, the Iowa pick won. In four of those cases, the New Hampshire pick won.

This year the GOP field remains unusually crowded and the Trump candidacy is unusual in all kinds of ways, so it’s hard to say if New Hampshire is still a bellwether, but there’s no denying it’s a prize, and there’s no denying Trump holds a daunting lead in the New Hampshire polls at the moment. Cruz will have his work cut out for him even finishing second. He’s currently clustered with a group of three other candidates (Kasich, Rubio and Bush) hovering around the 10% mark.

Cruz was able to eliminate Trump’s lead in Iowa due to the large number of evangelicals who showed up to vote. There were approximately 50 percent more voters in the GOP caucuses than four years ago. Cruz won’t have this advantage in New Hampshire, which is considerably less religious and considerably more moderate on social issues.

Additionally, independents, who make up 40 percent of the voters in New Hampshire, can choose whether to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Independents are leaning toward voting in the Republican primary, because they see it as more competitive. Consequently, they are estimated to constitute one third of the GOP vote. Trump is also leading by double digits among independents. Due to the independent voters, New Hampshire voters have a history of choosing non-establishment candidates.

Where Cruz may be able to make inroads on both Trump and his competitors clustered around the 10% mark is to distinguish his position from theirs on the ethanol mandate. Cruz opposes the subsidies and Trump supports them. Since many Iowa farmers receive the subsidies, and since the corn-centric Iowa economy benefits from the subsidy, Cruz’s opposition probably didn’t help him during the caucuses. It is impressive he still came in first place considering his position. Past Republican presidential candidates haven’t dared to speak up against ethanol subsidies in Iowa.

Cruz defended his position by saying he opposes all federal subsidies across the energy sector. “We should be developing oil, and gas, and coal, and nuclear, and wind, and solar, and ethanol, and biofuels,” he said last Thursday. “But, I don’t believe that Washington should be picking winners and losers. And, I think there should be no mandates, and no subsidies whatsoever.”

Trump said he not only supports the ethanol mandate but would expand it. Marco Rubio, who came in third in the Iowa caucus, is a strong contender going into the New Hampshire primary, but he also supports federal subsidies for ethanol. He is also viewed as more of an establishment candidate.

New Hampshire, historically, has had a libertarian streak. Cruz’s courageous stand on ethanol — at exactly the moment when it threatened to kill his shot at an Iowa victory — may resonate in the Granite State. According to Kate Lagreca with Northwind Strategies, a recent poll revealed that almost half of New Hampshire voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs the ethanol mandate. Home to many libertarians, including the Free State Project, which has attracted almost 2,000 more to move to the state, New Hampshire Republicans have strong fiscally conservative views.

Another reason they may appreciate it: New Hampshire’s economic interests are the opposite of Iowa’s when it comes to ethanol subsidies. The subsidies to Midwestern states are costing states like New Hampshire money. Requiring it in gasoline is driving up costs for commuters and effectively transferring money from New England to the Midwest. The Center for Regulatory Solutions estimates that New Hampshire motorists spent $560 million in additional fuel costs over the past decade.

Overall, Cruz is in good shape going into New Hampshire. Unlike the last two candidates who won Iowa, Huckabee and Santorum, who failed to pick up steam after their wins, Cruz is in good shape financially, with the most campaign cash on hand, $18.7 million, and a strong ground game. Rubio is in second place with $10.4 million. Trump is even trailing Jeb Bush, with $7.0 million and $7.6 million respectively.

Cruz may also be able to use New Hampshire’s preference for non-establishment candidates to his advantage. Although he’s not an outsider like Trump, he is someone who has frequently bucked the party. In the meantime, Trump has already provided fodder for a Cruz campaign commercial that cries out to be made: “I say to myself: If Ted Cruz is against ethanol, how does he win in Iowa? Because that’s very anti-Iowa.” New Hampshire voters may like the sound of that.