Editor's Note: (Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.)
(CNN) Iowa is upon us. After all the ads, the debates and the insults, a campaign that feels like it started in 1776 is finally going to count some votes. For the Republicans, the choice seems to be between two rebels: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The polls favor the former, history looks more favorably on the latter, though Cruz is now thought to be fighting for his survival.
This has been a peculiar electoral season. Neither party is merely thinking about how to win in November -- both are debating the kind of party that they want to be.
Mobilizing the grassroots seems to matter more than reaching out to moderates. This is because both parties have been shaken up by the presence of mavericks who have forced political elites to get back in touch with their bases. Bernie Sanders has driven Hillary Clinton to the left, where she looks about as comfortable as Rick Santorum in a gay bar.
Trump has driven the Republicans to the right -- although Cruz certainly needed no encouragement. Indeed the two men enjoyed a bromance until recently, forged by a similar attitude toward the party machine. Just as Trump boasts that he cannot be bought, Cruz has long operated in a caucus of one.
He hasn't a single endorsement from a senator, which is astonishing given that he is a senator. In the days when presidential candidates would be picked by a shadowy elite, that was a handicap. Nowadays it's a virtue.
The Republican campaign has hinged on the issue of immigration, which itself is synonymous with the issue of trust. It goes to the heart of the accusation that the GOP has betrayed its base: why isn't the border secured after two decades of promised action?
Immigration works well for Trump because his inflammatory language (Mexicans are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.") confirms the sense that he is "speaking from the heart." Chatter among Iowa Republicans reveals that some conservatives regard Marco Rubio as essentially liberal on immigration.
Cruz, by contrast, was seen as tough until quite recently. Accusations in the Fox News debate that he has flip-flopped underscore an impression that he tailors his remarks to suit the audience.
This character question really does haunt the Texan, along with his radical image. Bob Dole said his nomination would lead to "cataclysmic losses." Iown Gov. Terry Branstad said that he wants to see Cruz defeated. And Cruz's holier-than-thou attitude has also earned him the ire of local voters angry at his stance on ethanol. This ideological conservative is against federal energy subsidies -- a brave but foolhardy position to take in the Hawkeye State, which relies on them for tens of thousands of jobs.
Expert opinion is that a high turnout benefits Trump, as new voters join the caucus process for the first time. If, however, they are put off by bad weather and Byzantine procedures, then -- despite all of the above factors -- Cruz can still win.
Why? First, because of the religious vote. Four out of five Iowans are Christians and half attend church weekly. It is true that Trump has received significant evangelical endorsements. Tucker Carlson argues that The Donald has become, in the eyes of his fans, a defender of the religious against secularist bullies: They know he isn't Jesus but they weren't planning to meet him too soon anyhow.
Nevertheless, it's still hard to swallow that a significant majority, or plurality, of Christians will go to the caucus and make the case for a three-times-married, casino-building, occasionally pro-choice, foul-mouthed New Yorker who makes jokes about women's bodies.
Cruz, by contrast, is squeaky clean.
Second, there's the question of Republican Iowa's historic last-minute bumps. In 1980, George H.W. Bush overturned a massive Reagan polling lead to win by 2 points. In 1988, evangelical pastor Pat Robertson was predicted to get just 9% but jumped to 25% and placed second. In 1996, Pat Buchanan leapt from 4% in the polls to 23% and nearly beat Bob Dole.
And In 2012, Rick Santorum shocked the world by defeating Mitt Romney.
In other words, Iowans do make up their minds at the last minute, do follow the national news and do seem to enjoy defying the pollsters. This is good news for Ted Cruz and may be good news for Marco Rubio, too, who dreams of a strong finish to project him into New Hampshire and beyond.
Rubio is gaining ground, say some, elevated by good debates and the feeling that he is the future. Perhaps he is -- for now.
Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.