The presidential election officially kicked off last week with the Iowa caucuses. As the first primary in the nation, the caucuses are always a whirlwind of media attention and speculation. Though Iowa sends relatively few delegates to either party’s national convention, the results of the caucuses serve as a good indicator of which campaigns are serious contenders and which need to pack up and go home. The media loves this sort of thing, and countless predictions and analyses are written both before and after the caucuses. So let’s add one more to that list with a few key takeaways.

1. Cruz shows that retail politics still works (and Trump learns that the hard way).

Ted Cruz was banking a lot on Iowa. He took more trips there than any other Republican—making a point to visit all 99 counties—and built an unrivaled ground game. Iowans are used to being the center of attention for a few weeks every four years, and they relish the opportunity. Caucus-goers are accustomed to being wooed by candidates willing to endure countless small town burger joint and coffee shops visits—candidates who will “press-the-flesh” and meet the voters face to face. Cruz was willing to put in the time, and it paid off when he won with almost 28 percent of the vote. Trump, on the other hand, had almost no formal organization in Iowa. The billionaire assumed that the huge amount of media coverage would be enough to carry him to an easy victory. In Iowa, however, the only people that will turn out to the hours-long caucuses are voters that are truly enthusiastic and motivated. As Trump’s poor showing illustrates, he’s got a lot of work to do if he wants to prove himself as a viable candidate.

2. Rubio sets himself ahead of establishment pack.

The Republican race is now a three-way contest. There’s Trump, of course, and Cruz duking it out on the right of the right, and then there’s Marco Rubio. The senator from Florida rode to Congress on the Tea Party wave, yet has managed to carve himself out a place as someone palatable to both conservatives and moderates within the Republican base. Hawkish on foreign policy, open to immigration reform, and vehemently opposed to Obamacare, Rubio has a policy platform that seems designed for an effective national campaign. And here’s the best part: he can talk about his ideologies without alienating half the electorate, something quite a few Republicans have struggled with lately. He had a good showing at the caucuses, coming in third just barely behind Trump with 23 percent of the vote. What’s more important than the raw numbers, however, is the media spin. Everyone figured Cruz and Trump would be battling it out for the top spot, which doesn’t make for very compelling copy. The fact that Rubio was able to come so close to matching those numbers, particularly in Iowa where far-right candidates typically fare much better than elsewhere, plays into the “horserace” perspective of primaries. The story isn’t “Rubio Loses to Cruz and Trump,” but rather “Cruz and Trump Narrowly Avoid Rubio Surge.” It’s the game of expectations. In politics, perception is reality—if a candidate appears to be gaining then they are. That momentum translates into increased fundraising, more media attention and excitement among voters. If Rubio can hit the ground running in New Hampshire with the wind at his back, he just might be able to claim frontrunner status.

3. Sanders stuns Clinton.

This was Hillary Clinton’s to lose. She’d been to Iowa for her husband’s campaign in the 90s and for her own presidential bid in 2008. She knew how the game was played. Her campaign was a well-oiled machine staffed with more political experience than perhaps any other in recent history. She had the fundraising, the endorsements, the organization and frontrunner status. And she very nearly lost to a 70-something avowed Democratic-Socialist with crazy hair from Vermont, squeaking by with less than a .3 percent advantage. In my book, that’s a tie at best. In the game of expectations, that’s a devastating blow. According to most polls, Sanders is projected to win by several points in New Hampshire. Clinton scraping by in Iowa and then losing handily in the next primary is not a good media storyline. Clinton must hope that her supporters don’t jump ship before the Nevada and South Carolina primaries here in the coming weeks, contests she is much more likely to win. Sanders meanwhile can rightfully declare a victory in principle, if not in numbers, and coast to likely victory in New Hampshire. This surprising result reflects a deep schism in the Democratic base. Simply put, many young and liberal Democrats don’t believe Clinton represents their ideas. If she wants to avoid a lengthy and potentially damaging primary battle, Clinton needs to win these voters over.

There are countless other observations to be made about Iowa, and there are plenty of other media outlets that will spend the next week or so running through them. These three listed here are the most notable and will likely play the biggest role in shaping the campaign. For now, all we can do is wait and see which of these political horses will be the next to pick up steam and which will be the next to stumble.