Well, the month of “Newt-vember” is only hours away from its departure, and despite the ever-shifting sands of time, the former Speaker seems to be sitting pretty atop the GOP field of 2012 presidential candidates in many national polls as well as in most polls of key early states. Unlike Herman Cain, the Speaker has already dealt with his tawdry past, rendering it old news in the minds of most primary voters. Unlike Rick Perry, Speaker Gingrich can actually articulate his ideas using complete sentences, and does so while turning every statement into a component of a much larger idea. And unlike Michele Bachmann, the Speaker won’t be making outlandish claims anytime soon about the side-effects of common pharmaceuticals. As such, candidates who would benefit from the expiration of Newt’s candidacy may soon find themselves on an 11th hour mission to torpedo a man who is about to earn the moniker of Republican frontrunner for next year’s presidential nomination.

If Newt does somehow manage to ride a wave of “Newtopia” into the new year, clinching the nomination by besting Gov. Romney in the early states and then beating the Bay State executive in a one-on-one race in the later, delegate-rich states, the presidential field will suffer from a vacuum so significant that one or more minor party candidates will almost certainly enter the race. Like it or not, Speaker Gingrich is viewed by both the GOP establishment and by many elements of the base as being damaged goods. His personal foibles are known but present, and they will almost certainly provide fodder for Team Obama when the president inevitably goes negative down the road. The Speaker will turn 69 in 2012, making his candidacy reminscent of past “early-bird special” candidates, such as Bob Dole and John McCain, both of whom lost to much younger opponents. And while Gingrich should be the sort of candidate who could thread the needle between the wonks and the jocks, so to speak, the wonks view Newt as an unserious panderer, and the jocks see Newt as a creature of the Beltway. Neither side will be quick to warm up to him once the shock of an Obama/Gingrich race wears off.

All of that is why I suspect that such a race will open the door to at least one major third-party candidate, and perhaps even give the nation a 1948-style scenario, with two such candidates entering the race and leaping into serious contention. This is the sort of race that would have Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson all looking at a non-traditional path to victory. The most likely entry would be Bloomberg, who would probably reason that he could put together an Electoral College majority by winning all of the nation’s big states with large urban centers, including California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. At that point, the question is which of the quirky, anti-establishment conservatives decides to run as well, representing the “true voice of Middle America.” Given Gary Johnson’s relative youth and treatment during this year’s presidential debates, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the former New Mexico governor snagging the Libertarian Party nomination and running as the candidate of the Far West.

While this may seem far-fetched, it actually strikes me as a likely occurrence if Newt is nominated. An Obama/Newt matchup would leave scores of voters unhappy with their choices, similar to the aftermath of Gov. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination in 1992. At least there, Clinton was a fresh face. And despite all of that, a Bush/Clinton race initially rubbed so many people the wrong way that a self-financing third-party candidate was polling ahead of both major party candidates by mid-1992. Obama v. Gingrich, it seems, would be Bush v. Clinton on crack. Indeed, an Obama/Gingrich race bears a much better resemblance to 1948, when an unpopular president, Harry Truman, and an aloof Republican nominee, Tom Dewey, were challenged to their right by Strom Thurmond and to their left by Henry Wallace in what amounted to a four-party general election. That led to an upset victory for the embattled president, following a general election campaign that went down in history as one of the nation’s least predictable races for the White House. As such, if Newt does somehow manage to become next year’s Republican presidential nominee, it seems wise to anticipate a race that is anything but conventional.

Clarus Research Louisiana 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 31% (4%)
• Mitt Romney 23% (17%)
• Herman Cain 12% (21%)
• Rick Perry 11% (23%)
• Ron Paul 6% (4%)
• Michele Bachmann 4% (3%)
• Buddy Roemer 2% (3%)
• Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
• Rick Santorum 0% (0%)
• Undecided/Other/None 10% (24%)

Survey of 300 registered Republicans was conducted November 20-22, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5.6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 5-7, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Welcome to the top tier, Newt.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty and National Review join the “Destroy Newt” pile on. OUCH.

PPP (D) Montana 2012 Republican Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 37% [11%]
• Ron Paul 12% [10%]
• Mitt Romney 11% [22%]
• Michele Bachmann 10% [25%]
• Herman Cain 10% [8%]
• Rick Perry 5%
• Jon Huntsman 3% [4%]
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Someone else/Not sure 10% [10%]

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

• Strongly committed to that candidate 33%
• Might end up supporting someone else 67%

Second Choice

• Newt Gingrich 18%
• Herman Cain 15%
• Mitt Romney 15%
• Michele Bachmann 8%
• Rick Perry 6%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Rick Santorum 2%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Someone else/Not sure 27%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 65% / 23% {+42%}
• Herman Cain 46% [44%] / 33% [15%] {+13%}
• Mitt Romney 44% [47%] (58%) / 39% [36%] (24%) {+5%}
• Ron Paul 37% / 44% {-7%}
• Rick Perry 33% / 45% {-12%}

Survey of 700 Montana Republican primary voters was conducted November 28-30, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Political ideology: 40% [39%] Somewhat conservative; 39% [39%] Very conservative; 15% [15%] Moderate; 3% [3%] Somewhat liberal; 3% [3%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted June 16-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 10-13, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

PPP (D) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 47% (10%) {10%} [30%]
• Mitt Romney 17% (30%) {29%} [28%]
• Herman Cain 15% (7%) {14%}
• Ron Paul 5% (8%) {8%} [9%]
• Michele Bachmann 4% (6%) {22%} [11%]
• Jon Huntsman 3% (3%) {2%}
• Rick Perry 2% (24%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (2%)
• Gary Johnson 0% (1%)
• Someone else/Undecided 7% (9%) {9%} [11%]

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

• Strongly committed to that candidate 44%
• Might end up supporting someone else 56%

Second Choice

• Mitt Romney 21%
• Newt Gingrich 20%
• Herman Cain 11%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Michele Bachmann 6%
• Jon Huntsman 3%
• Rick Santorum 3%
• Ron Paul 3%
• Gary Johnson 1%
• Someone else/Undecided 25%

Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Tea Party?

• Yes 32%
• No 58%

Do you agree or disagree with Newt Gingrich’s opinions about illegal immigration?

• Agree 57%
• Disagree 20%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Newt Gingrich 72% (57%) {46%} [58%] (59%) / 21% (29%) {37%} [26%] (24%) {+51%}
• Herman Cain 51% {48%} / 35% {19%} {+16%}
• Mitt Romney 51% (65%) {56%} [61%] (61%) / 36% (22%) {30%} [24%] (22%) {+15%}
• Rick Perry 27% (54%) {38%} / 55% (31%) {12%} {-28%}
• Ron Paul 25% (33%) {44%} [53%] / 57% (45%) {31%} [16%] {-32%}

Survey of 470 Florida Republican primary voters was conducted November 28-30, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Political ideology: 37% (43%) {35%} [38%] Somewhat conservative; 35% (33%) {40%} [40%] Very conservative; 23% (19%) {21%} [17%] Moderate; 5% (4%) {4%} [3%] Somewhat liberal; 1% (1%) {1%} [1%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted September 22-25, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted June 16-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 24-27, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-20, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 30-31, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 16-18, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 5-8, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

BOOM:

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Newt Gingrich 45% [40%] (38%) {38%} [34%] (30%) {37%} [39%]
• Barack Obama 43% [46%] (50%) {44%} [49%] (48%) {49%} [47%]

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 28-29, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 19-20, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 11-12, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 3-4, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 12-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the polls conducted June 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 15-16, 2011 are in square brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

We are now just 1 month away from the first votes being cast in the Iowa Caucuses and the race seems to be boiling down to a two man race.

Gov. Romney has remained the frontrunner, continuing to lead all-comers in money, organization, and endorsements. Romney’s campaign has continued along as scheduled, ramping up after Thanksgiving, and beginning to launch the very first television ads of his campaign. He has yet to be damaged in any debates, and has shown the steadiest support of any candidate. However, he has once again been challenged by the revolving door of “Not Romney” candidates, this time in the form of a resurrected Newt Gingrich. What Gingrich lacks in money and organization he is making up for with hype and buzz, for the moment. Romney’s total domination of New Hampshire was dented somewhat by the New Hampshire Union Leader’s surprising endorsement of the disgraced former Speaker. Still, Romney remains the top choice of the party’s key donors, organizers and activists, though he will have to begin expending his resources to solidify his position.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has surged in recent polls, becoming the race’s latest boomlet candidate. The anti-Romney forces seem to be settling on Gingrich as the man best positioned to stop the former Massachusetts governor’s nomination. While Gingrich has risen in the polls, he remains one of the worst organized candidates, trailing others in both Iowa and New Hampshire in terms of a ground game. He is only now beginning to rehire some staff who ditched the Georgia congressman in the summer, as the campaign tries to regain some organizational footing. With Gingrich rising in the polls most of the establishment and numerous other elected republicans around the country will likely begin lining up against the former Speaker, whose dramatic fall from power still remains fresh in the minds of party leaders. This group includes current Speaker John Boehner, one of the leaders who lead the effort to remove Gingrich from power due to the shame and disgrace he brought to his office. Whether Gingrich can withstand this barrage will determine if he can keep up his surge. Gingrich will also have try and change the polls that show him being destroyed by President Barrack Obama in a general election matchup, compared to Gov. Romney, who continues to poll very well against the incumbent.

Georgia Businessman Herman Cain seems to be heading towards the final days of his campaign now that a woman has come forward alleging a 13-year affair. On top of the serious allegations of sexual harassment, the affair allows us to safely render Cain’s campaign finished.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul remains the only other contender aside from Romney raising serious money and building a legitimate organization. Though it is still hard to see how Paul expands on his base, his large small donor list and impressive money bombs will make him a factor in the early states, and may surprise and confound the conventional wisdom.

Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman’s campaign suffered a blow when the Union Leader chose exiled former Speaker Newt Gingrich over the New Hampshire-centric former Utah governor. Huntsman campaign now hinges on a miracle finish in the New Hampshire primary.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has seen his numbers fall to all-time lows as he continues to struggle through the race. In a great stroke of irony, it is Gingrich, the man who Perry poached staff from just a few months again, replacing the Texas governor as the “Not-Romney” alternative. However, Perry still commands a top notch campaign operation, now headed up by Joe Allbaugh, and a big bank account that he is just beginning to tap. If the Gingrich balloon deflates, could we see another Perry boomlet?

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann continues to see her campaign fade away, though remains an outside threat in the Iowa Caucus, especially now that the Cain implosion is complete.

And yes, Rick Santorum is still running for President. But despite his best efforts and 99 county Iowa organization, evangelical leaders still refuse to back Santorum, despite being their most logical destination.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Ron Paul
4. Jon Huntsman
5. Rick Perry
6. Michele Bachmann
7. Herman Cain
8. Rick Santorum

VP Watch: 1. Marco Rubio 2. Chris Christie 3. Bob McDonnell 4. Tim Pawlenty 5. John Thune

Due to popular demand, I give you the early 2016 Power Rankings (if Gingrich is nominated):

1. Chris Christie
2. Jeb Bush
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Bob McDonnell
5. Marco Rubio
6. Mike Pence
7. Paul Ryan
8. John Thune
9. Jon Huntsman
10. Rand Paul

ABC News/Washington Post 2012 Favorability Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mitt Romney 38% [33%] (33%) / 38% [36%] (31%) {0%}
• Ron Paul 32% (25%) / 35% (27%) {-3%}
• Newt Gingrich 35% {32%} / 42% {43%} {-7%}

Among Republicans

• Newt Gingrich 60% {57%} / 26% {23%} {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 56% [57%] (55%) / 29% [21%] (19%) {+27%}
• Ron Paul 39% / 34% {+5%}

Among Conservative Republicans

• Newt Gingrich 67% / 24% {+43%}
• Mitt Romney 63% [60%] (57%) / 25% [25%] (17%) {+38%}
• Ron Paul 39% / 37% {+2%}

Survey of 1,007 adults was conducted November 22-27, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 9-13, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 13-16, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 14-18, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

From The Hill:

The Republican chairman of the Immigration Reform caucus blasted GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday for calling to allow some illegal immigrants to remain in the country.
Speaking on CNN’s “John King, U.S.A.,” Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) likened Gingrich’s plan to drilling a hole in the bottom of a sinking boat to let the water out.

“Newt, I don’t care who you are,” Bilbray said. “Quit sending the mixed message that we are going to somehow reward or accommodate you if you broke the law while there are those waiting patiently and playing by the rules, waiting to come into this country legally.”

Something that got lost in the shuffle of the Gingrich surge and Romney slide over the past couple of days is a smaller, but still remarkable story: the Bachmann resurgence.

In one Iowa poll released yesterday, Bachmann doubled her support from 5% back up to 10%. In another, she increased her support to 13% — good enough for second place in the Hawkeye State. Who is she trailing now in Iowa? Newt Gingrich in both polls and Mitt Romney in one.

And so, sensing her opportunity to build on these new, remarkably strong numbers in Iowa, Bachmann is going on the attack. She began by attacking Newt over his position on illegal immigration – a position which Bachmann characterizes as amounting to amnesty – by doing press releases about it and bringing it up in interviews. Then yesterday on CNN, she really unloaded on the former Speaker in an interview with Wolf Blitzer:

[Gingrich's] position would be inconsistent because he signed a letter which was published in the Wall Street Journal in 2004 saying that he did in fact support President Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform – which was commonly known as amnesty, because what it would do was make legal 11 million illegal workers in the United States. He was also in support of the federal DREAM Act, which would provide taxpayer subsidies for college tuition for the children of illegal aliens. That’s just a fact; it’s just on record. He may have a different position today, but even as recently as the last debate he said he in fact favored making legal, illegal workers. Those are two different positions, and he’ll have to reconcile those.

But again, those aren’t the only times he’s had inconsistent positions. He came out in favor of entering into Libya and the no-fly zone, and he also came out later saying he was not in favor of Libya. He said he was not in favor of TARP and then he was in favor of TARP. He was sitting on the couch with Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying we needed to do something about global warming, now he’s not so sure. He was also the father of the individual health care mandate – and admitted as much on stage when he was questioned by [Mitt Romney] – and it’s highly doubtful to think that our Republican nominee could have championed the individual healthcare mandate, could have taken millions of dollars to advance that mandate, and then think that they were going to actively work to repeal Obamacare.

And he also took $1.8 million to offer influence in Washington, DC on behalf of Freddie Mac — all while I was fighting Freddie Mac and trying to put them into receivership, which is bankruptcy. So there’s been a lot of inconsistencies.

Boom goes the dynamite. That would be about the “everything and the kitchen sink argument” against Gingrich at this point [without mentioning the Speaker's messy personal life or 84 ethics violations brought against him]. It’s a line of attack that Bachmann had clearly rehearsed, and one she will be eager repeat over and over again as she travels across Iowa.

She has an advantage that the other candidates don’t, as well – she is focused solely on Iowa while Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and others are campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Because of that, and perhaps because of the collapse of Perry and Cain, she is enjoying those higher poll numbers in the state and for the first time in months sees a potential path to victory. Gingrich is the clear frontrunner right now, so her cross hairs are focused squarely on his back.

All of this would be great news for Mitt Romney as well, who Bachmann has been very friendly with on the campaign trail thus far. Romney clearly needs Gingrich to be knocked down a few rungs on the ladder, but can’t afford to get his hands too dirty in the process. Having Bachmann with a vested interest in seeing the Speaker collapse as well is a boon for the Romney campaign.

Except that Bachmann isn’t shying away from attacking Romney now, either. Now that a path to victory in Iowa has presented itself, Bachmann appears to be in it to win it for real — and when Wolf asked her, “Who is the bigger flip-flopper, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich?” she followed up that blistering critique of Gingrich with this one of Romney:

I think both of them have a lot to answer for to the voters for being on both sides of the issues. Governor Romney has also advocated for mandating that every citizen in the state of Massachusetts also purchase health insurance, which is exactly the same as Obamacare and was a pattern for Obamacare. He’s been on both sides of the abortion issue; he was for abortion, he was against abortion. He was for same-sex marriage, and in fact I believe he signed 189 marriage licenses for same-sex couples and then came out against it. And so on issue after issue after issue, Governor Romney has been on both sides – and Speaker Gingrich has to answer for that as well.

With just 33 days remaining before the Iowa caucuses, the gloves are coming off. While the spotlight is on Gingrich and Romney, Bachmann is flying under the radar in Iowa. Her poll numbers are rising, and she is making a push for a surprisingly strong finish in the state.

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research (R) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 41% [12%] (9%)
• Mitt Romney 17% [33%] (20%)
• Herman Cain 13% [30%] (6%)
• Rick Perry 7% [3%] (29%)
• Ron Paul 4% [3%] (5%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% [2%] (8%)
• Rick Santorum 1% (2%)
• Someone else 3% [2%]
• No opinion 11% [16%] (21%)

Survey of 513 likely GOP primary voters was conducted November 29, 2011 for The Florida Times-Union. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 16, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 13, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

My latest piece is up at Pajamas Media:?

With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a good thing?

Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.

However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:

1)  Big Spending and Earmarks:

While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.

As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.

Gingrich’s speakership  was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”

One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.

Read the whole thing at Pajamas Media. One of the four items included was not Gingrich’s character issue, given the serious policy and ideology issues. I do give benefit of the doubt to the former Speaker that a combination of age and spiritual growth will make less likely a recurrence of what happened during his speakership. But, the past will be very tricky. Having at least one actual long-term affair would give any accusers (whether real or not) bonus credibility and we can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot more about this before it’s all said and done if Gingrich is the nominee.

On a personal note, I’d add that examining Gingrich’s record makes Romney look better. All of my concerns with Mitt Romney, such as his ability to effect needed change or his willingness to stick to conservative principles, as well as Romney’s typical politician behavior are even more severe concerns with Newt Gingrich. I still hope Cain has a comeback Kid still style resurgence and that I get to vote for him or we see a return of another of the more conservative candidates such as Bachmann. However, if we get to March, and it comes down to Romney and Gingrich, with Gingrich having a chance of taking the nomination, I’ll vote for Romney.

Update:

One of the commeters at PJM has found out my real reason for challenging Gingrich:

ADAM LOVES ROMNEY. End of story. Would Adam care to debate Newt ?

I’m sure long-time readers of Race42012 would attest to my love of Mitt Romney.

Seriously, Romney is not my favorite candidate, but I don’t hate him. I just happen to have more serious concerns about Newt Gingrich than Romney.

From CNN:

Rep. William Panek called the Cain campaign Tuesday morning to say he was dropping his endorsement, telling CNN he will shift his support to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich instead…

“One or two allegations, it kind of piqued my interest, but you know, it’s politics,” Panek said. “But with a long-term, ongoing affair I’d kind of had enough.”

So, if understand Rep. Panek’s  logic here, he’s decided to switch from a candidate who has been accused of a long affair to a candidate who actually is known to have a long-term affair.

I guess if you think Cain’s response to the affair has been disqualifying, switching to current flavor of the month would make sense, same if you think Cain is damaged good that is irrecoverable. Although, the reason Gingrich’s peccadilloes aren’t  hurting him because they’re not being covered right now.

But if you think the allegations of the affair are the problem and buy them, why on God’s green earth would you switch to Gingrich?  Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, even Romney, sure. But Gingrich?

ARG South Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Newt Gingrich 33% {8%} [3%] (9%)
• Mitt Romney 22% {25%} [25%] (18%)
• Herman Cain 10% {26%} [10%] (1%)
• Rick Perry 8% {15%} [6%]
• Ron Paul 8% {7%} [2%] (1%)
• Michele Bachmann 3% {5%} [13%] (5%)
• Jon Huntsman 3% {0%} [0%] (0%)
• Rick Santorum 1% {1%} [2%] (1%)
• Buddy Roemer 0% {0%} [2%] (0%)
• Gary Johnson 0% {0%} [0%] (0%)
• Undecided 12% {12%} [15%] (11%)

Survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters (446 Republicans, 144 independents, and 10 Democrats) was conducted November 25-28, 2011. The margin of error is ± 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: Republican: 74% {81%} [79%] (76%); Independent: 26% {19%} [21%] (24%). Tea Party supporter: 46% {47%} [51%] (52%); Not a Tea Party supporter/Undecided: 54% {53%} [49%] (48%).  Results from the poll conducted October 5-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 12-17, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 18-23, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The group Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government has taken aim at Family Leader head Bob Vander Plaats in a preemptive strike on a potential endorsement of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The group also links Vander Plaats to former gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle, who has had similar marital problems to Speaker Gingrich.

Dear Mr. Vander Plaats:

We are aware that you are preparing to endorse a candidate for President of the United States in the coming weeks. This will undoubtedly be an important decision considering you have the ear of many Christians throughout our state of Iowa. Our group believes that we must select leaders who not only espouse our values, but who live them each and every day.

With that being said, we have serious concerns that your endorsement may be guided, not by prayer and conviction, but by personal benefit and prior relationships. Of which, would seem to lead you toward Newt Gingrich and, needless to say, he is not an acceptable choice among Christians.

These concerns of an imminent Newt Gingrich endorsement stem from the following:

1. Your prior connection to Mr. Gingrich via Congressman Jim Nussle.

2. Your ill-advised track record as it pertains to supporting candidates that lack common moral fiber.

3. Your acceptance of $200,000 which Mr. Gingrich secured for your organizations.

YOU AND MR. GINGRICH SHARE A MUTUAL FRIEND IN JIM NUSSLE

In 2006, Mr. Nussle ran for Governor and asked that you serve as his running mate; an offer your willfully accepted.

In the nineties, Mr. Nussle’s current wife was working for Mr. Gingrich; while Mr. Gingrich’s current wife was working for a committee which Mr. Nussle served on in the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, both men were married when they began affairs with each other’s staff members – all while Mr. Gingrich was leading the investigation into Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. This is an unfortunate irony.

More importantly, it points to a willful disregard of personal behavior and you are forever linked to both of these candidates in a way that is unacceptable for many of us who demand Christian leadership.

Which brings us to our next concern.

YOU CAMPAIGNED FOR MR. NUSSLE

As previously mentioned, you joined Mr. Nussle’s gubernatorial ticket in 2006.

During that cycle, you travelled to every corner of Iowa trumpeting Mr. Nussle’s character and his ability to represent the values of Iowans. You did this all the while you knew he betrayed the bond he made to God upon proclaiming his vows to his first wife.

We do not blame you for Mr. Nussle’s indiscretion; however, we do worry that if you went as far as to vigorously campaign for and place your name beside his on the ballot that an endorsement of Mr. Gingrich would not be out of the realm of possibility.

With that said, we fully recognize that you do deserve some credit. Iowa voting records have since shown that you did not vote for Mr. Nussle or in the 2006 election – an indication that even you did not truly believe his values were adequate for higher office.

YOU RECEIVED $200,000 FROM MR. GINGRICH’S EFFORTS

In 2010, Mr. Gingrich helped you secure $200,000 in seed money for one of your efforts.

This is a great deal of money, but we trust that this will not have an impact on your decision as an endorsement which will represent our Christian values.

We do believe hope still resides that you may reconsider your endorsement. You lead an organization that encompasses an affiliate group called “Marriage Matters” and not only did Mr. Gingrich fail to sign your Marriage Vow, he failed to live his life in accordance with the values we hold so dear.

It is by now public knowledge that Mr. Gingrich has been unfaithful to two of his previous spouses, even delivering divorce papers to one as she lay in the hospital from a condition surrounding her cancer. We pray that marriage truly does matter as much as you represent, and not as little as it has meant to the candidates you have supported in the past.

Mr. Vander Plaats, all of our concerns derive from a larger one that your endorsement may be for sale, either for money or for status. Please don’t sell Iowa’s values to the highest bidder. These 30 pieces of silver are simply not worth the weight your conscience will bear as you consider misleading thousands of Christian voters in Iowa into believe Mr. Gingrich represents their values.

If you take nothing else from our letter please remember that “whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live” (Proverbs 15:27).

May your decision be guided by the Lord.

It’s been an exciting roller coaster ride for Herman Cain. When he first entered the race — the first ‘major’ Republican candidate to do so — Intrade investors gave him exactly 0.1% chance of winning the nomination. He was a WorldNetDaily columnist, a talk radio host, and former pizza CEO who had badly lost the only other two political races in which he had run. Nobody gave him a chance.

Cain soldiered on after a rough fifth place finish at Ames, and managed to win the Presidency V straw poll which shot him to the top of the pack. Now, however, fate has come full circle and through a combination of verbal gaffes and charges of impropriety, Cain finds himself once again at the bottom of the pack.

Headlines like “Herman Cain abandoned by conservatives” mark how far Cain has come, and how far he has fallen. The bad news is piling up, as one of his Super PACs filed paperwork this afternoon to legally change their name. The PAC removed Cain’s name from their title, which has been amended simply to “Beat Obama PAC”.

Just a couple hours ago, a Cain aide confirmed that Cain will decide whether to drop out of the race by the end of the week. The signs are there that he is preparing to close up shop. He’s calling individual donors to talk to them about the situation – something that wouldn’t be happening if Cain had decided to soldier on against all odds once again.

Perhaps most tellingly, Cain asked one of his aides to cancel a New York media dinner that was set for Sunday night. Cain asked for the dinner to be canceled “in case he dropped out of the race.”

Up until that cancellation, Cain had said multiple times that he would keep his campaign schedule while he sorted through all this. The fact that he is now cancelling appearances would seem to indicate that the reassessing is all but finished and the decision has been reached.

It is a sad and unfitting end for a candidate that had many Republicans excited. Cain survived a lot during this race. But it looks like he won’t survive this.

UPDATE: Rumor — Cain campaign employees are supposedly leaking that Herman Cain will officially drop out of the race tomorrow.

As notes below, Rasmussen Reports is out with a new poll on the New Hampshire GOP Primary race.

Some highlights from the cross-tabs (which subscribers have access to):

• Newt is doing well in this latest poll but he seems to have a serious issue with younger voters 18-39, only 6% of whom indicated that they would vote for Gringrich versus 36% for Romney.  Anomaly or serious issue?
• Romney is still holding the key demo: 40 to 64 year old moderate Republicans.  Newt is at 26% of the “somewhat conservative” votes vs. 41% for Romney.  This group makes up over half of the most likely voters.
• Romney is also holding a 15 point lead on those who are certain to vote on election day.
• Newt has the serious edge with the Tea Party vote in New Hampshire doubling Romney’s 22% to take 44% of this activist demo.
• Surprisingly, Romney has 44% of the Catholic vote over Gingrich with 27%.  What gives there?  Are Catholics more moderate?
• Here’s a curious ditty: Ras. Reports asked “Which candidate did the Manchester Union Leader Endorse?”.  The correct answer is Gingrich but 58% of Romney supporters thought Romney got the nod.  We’ll see if things change when word gets out further.
• In the ancillary questions we find that 20% of New Hampshire Ron Paul supporters would vote for a third party rather than a GOP nominee not named Ron; Santorum has the biggest share of Obama loathers with 93% of his vote saying that they STRONGLY disapprove of Obama.

Rasmussen New Hampshire Republican Primary

• Romney – 34% (41)
• Gingrich – 24% (8)
• Paul – 14% (11)
• Huntsman – 11% (7)
• Cain – 5% (17)
• Bachmann – 2% (3)
• Perry – 2% (4)
• Santorum – 1% (1)

Survey of 762 likely Republican voters (+/-4% MoE) was conducted Nov 28. Numbers in parentheses are from the poll conducted Oct 25.

Sounds like it’s just a matter of time before Herman Cain ends his campaign:

“Over the next several days, we are going to continue with the schedule as usual,” he said. “I’ve got a major speech tonight at Hillsdale College on national security and foreign policy and I will deliver it with vim, vigor, and enthusiasm. And then tomorrow we’ve got some media appearances scheduled. So we’re going to continue until we complete our assessment over the next several days.”

“But if a decision is made, different than to plow ahead, you all will be the first to know,” he said. “So until that time, I want to continue to thank you all for your support, thank you for your prayers. It’s taken an emotional toll, but the people in the audience tonight will never know it.”

“It’s also taken a toll on my wife and family, as you would imagine,” he concluded. “Any time you put another cloud of doubt, unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, for some people, you’re guilty until proven innocent. And so, the public will have to decide whether they believe her or whether they believe me. That’s why we’re going to give it time, to see what type of response we get from our supporters.”

Please read the full wrap-up in Cain’s conference call over at NRO.

Over at the Hedgehog Report (a great site dedicated to posting nothing but political polls), David Wissing has compiled his first look at what a general election matchup would look like between Romney and Obama, and then between Gingrich and Obama.

Using the most recent poll from each state, the electoral college math currently looks like this:

• Romney – 256
• Obama – 256
• Tie – 26

• Obama – 451
• Gingrich – 76
• Tie – 11

Of course, the usual caveats apply: most of these polls are from PPP, since they are the only outfit polling a lot of these states, and so the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, some of the polls are older (Obama v Gingrich in Colorado hasn’t been polled since February, for instance).

However, this gives us a glimpse into what a general election might look like with our two current frontrunners.

We Ask America Iowa Caucus Survey

• Gingrich – 29% (18)
• Bachmann – 13% (11)
• Romney – 13% (15)
• Paul – 11% (11)
• Cain – 7% (22)
• Perry – 5% (4)
• Santorum – 5% (3)
• Huntsman – 4% (2)
• Undecided – 13% (14)

Survey of 962 Republican voters (+/-3.16% MoE) was conducted Nov 28. Numbers in parentheses are from their poll conducted Nov 6.

Insider Advantage South Carolina Republican Primary

• Gingrich – 38% (19)
• Romney – 15% (16)
• Cain – 13% (26)
• Paul – 7% (3)
• Perry – 4% (6)
• Bachmann – 3% (5)
• Santorum – 2% (2)
• Someone Else – 5% (4)
• Undecided – 13% (20)

Survey of 519 likely Republican primary voters (+/-4% MoE) was conducted Nov 28. Numbers in parentheses are from the poll conducted Nov 8.

The article linked also mentions results for New Hampshire where Romney’s lead has shrunk to just 31%-27% over Gingrich. Once full results of that poll becomes available we will post them here.

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research (R) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll

• Newt Gingrich 28.1% {14.5%} [11.7%] (12.1%)
• Ron Paul 13.3% {11.4%} [8.7%] (9.6%)
• Mitt Romney 11.5% {18.7%} [14.9%] (18.1%)
• Michele Bachmann 10.1% {5.4%} [7.8%] (11.0%)
• Herman Cain 9.8% {23.3%} [29.6%] (26.4%)
• Rick Perry 6.6% {8.8%} [5.6%] (5.8%)
• Rick Santorum 3.3% {3.4%}
• Someone else 3.2% {1.7%} [5.5%] (3.0%)
• No opinion 14.1% {12.8%} [14.2%] (13.1%)

(more…)

Gov. Mitt Romney received three major Cuban endorsements out of Florida today. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart have all announced their support for the former Massachusetts governor. The three Florida representatives are Cuban hard-liners who supported John McCain on his way to victory in the 2008 Florida Primary.

“The policies of the past three years have put America’s standing in the world at risk,” said Ros-Lehtinen in a statement put out by Romney’s campaign. “It is time we had a president who understands that our country must lead. Mitt Romney believes that America is an exceptional nation and has a strategy to restore our country’s greatness. The Romney plan for economic growth will create jobs and opportunities for all, especially for South Floridians, who are passionate in their pursuit of the American dream.”

There may be nothing wrong with Fox Channel 5′s report on Ginny White’s allegation that she had a 13 year affair with Herman Cain as far as modern journalistic standards are concerned, but there may be plenty wrong with modern journalism.

Good investigative journalism is dead. In this case, Fox 5 has brought us the allegation, but left too many questions. Perhaps, this is the way stories are designed. Like old Soap Opears, the intent is to create an interesting hook so we’ll all tune in for the next installment of “Herman Can: The Scandal.”

To be clear, Cain does need to answer the questions and clarify the exact nature of his relationship with Ms. White. This is someone he knows who has made a serious allegation against him. He needs to explain the nature and extent of this relationship.

Some may question the wisdom of any relationship or friendship between the two. Yet, it seems to me to be the hypocrisy of the modern business world. Imagine, if you would, a man advising male executives. If you’re in business and you’re outgoing and helpful to people of only one sex and less helpful to another, you’re quickly labeled a sexist.  Modern executives are taught to treat men and women equally.

Given that the books with Cain’s handwriting in them are Cain’s own books on leadership and business management, rather than say Leaves of the Grass, that at least suggests Cain’ s relationship with the woman was more professional and encouraging rather than romantic.

The signed books are the weakest evidence provided by White because the incriptions really betray nothing more than friendliness. I’ve had friends sign books with inscriptions just as friendly as these. It’s common.

Perhaps, the bigger proof was her possession of Cain’s private phone number and the number of texts and calls between them. But again, how damning is this? While many of us may only give our private cell phone number to  ten or twenty people, for Cain that number isprobably significantly higher given the number of people and activities he was involved with including church, business, community, friends, family, and political contacts.

The extent of contact between Cain and White was further obscured by Fox’ 5′s reporting. They stated there were 61 text messages and phone calls, both incoming and outgoing. This fails to give us any helpful idea as to the nature of these contacts. If Cain and White were having a twenty minute phone conversation every other day while Cain was on the campaign trail this would raise some questions. But, with text messages thrown in, the possibilities can become endless. White very well could have been sending several text messages without Cain responding or responding less. Or if Cain and she texted back and forth for a few minutes, they could easily burn through a dozen text messages in no time flat. Cain also could have had a list of friends that he sends text messages to for whatever reason. In addition, the two could have played phone tag on something, with many calls back and forth leaving messages on voice mail and never even touching base. Without giving us a clue as to the breakdown of the conversations (numbers of texts, number of phone calls, length of phone calls, and who was the initiator of the contacts.)

Even then, all that we would have in context is the situation over the last four months when Ms. White admits the sexual relationship had ended.

Unlike the sexual harassment stories, this one is real simple to prove or disprove. Ms. White listed several specific places that she says She and Cain frequented. If that’s the case, then there should be someone at those hotels to corroborate. If Fox 5 had been into old-fashioned investigative journalism, they would have investigated this angle themselves. But, if they did that, we’d have less incentive to tune in for the next installment.

Yesterday, Thomas Edsall of the New York Times penned an absolutely vital report on the Democratic Party’s future political strategy. I strongly encourage everyone to read it in its entirety, but I present the highlights:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

…The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

…For his part, [Stanley] Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

…The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

…A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

…The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

I had a few immediate reactions after reading this:

1. This could potentially spell big trouble for the Republican Party. It comes as no secret that the Democrats intend to strengthen their hold over many of the fastest-growing demographics in America. This renders it all the more important that the GOP re-focus its efforts to woo back young voters. If we do nothing, and the Democrats refine their pitch to these Americans, we risk losing an entire generation.

2. Thinking geographically, this would result in a Democratic Party even more concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas, with the GOP likely swooping in to the vast interior states. Carried out to the extreme, these dynamics could re-draw the electoral map so that we see states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and/or Wisconsin going red and Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and/or Colorado going more solidly blue.

3. This does not appear to bode well for Mitt Romney, although this strategy may not have enough immediate impact to fundamentally change the 2012 race. Romney’s poll numbers typically increase with the respondents’ income levels, so a party base centered more on the lower end of the scale may not provide as much enthusiasm and fundraising dollars as he would like. Furthermore, Mitt’s potential to reel in suburbanites and more secular affluent types may get countered by the Dems’ full-court press for them.

4. This would play almost perfectly into Mike Huckabee’s hands if he had decided to run. It would have also come as good news to Sarah Palin, had she thrown in her hat.

So, now I ask our esteemed community, what thoughts do you have on this? Does anyone with political knowledge more encyclopedic than mine have any historical comparisons or examples to cite? And how can the GOP ensure long-term viability if the Democrats’ revamped strategy comes to fruition?

In 2006 there was an open seat for Governor in New York. Democrats were rallying early on to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, so the Republicans needed a candidate who was exciting and able to compete. I went to a Gubernatorial candidate forum and one person stood out, Assemblyman Pat Manning. Manning was young, had a young family, was an across the board conservative, and was a great speaker. He ran in favor of old fashioned family values and classic American values. When he spoke, it sounded like he meant it. I got my picture taken with him and promptly donated to his campaign. I was hooked, I was excited. I was wrong.

A few weeks later it came out that the man was cheating on his wife, who had begun the process of divorcing him. It was messy, as it appeared him and, (according to insiders I knew at the time) other Assemblymen were passing around interns in a sketchy story that appeared less than true, until he dropped out of the race for Governor. He then tried to run for his old assembly seat, losing to Marc Molinaro in the primary – after getting caught trying to contact Molinaro’s pollster pretending to be Molinaro over the phone. I was disappointed to say the least. I couldn’t get over that this man who I had supported, man who I had believed in, would fall this far and could have deceived me so much. Fast forward to this year.

Early on, I had jumped on the Cain Train. When he first began talking about a Presidential campaign, I was excited. Listening to him speak about the fundamentals of conservatism was mesmerizing. His outsider credentials and his vast business experience was impressive to me. Add to that, he had a great personal story and had a great family life. His wife didn’t want to be in the spotlight, she liked her privacy, so he didn’t drag her on the campaign trail. I liked that. I then went out on a limb for him here endorsing him. Then the allegations started rolling in.

First, there were allegations of sexual harassment. There were few details, they appeared…frankly, unfounded. Then came more allegations, including one from a person who actually came public with their specific allegations. Now, there’s this – claims of a 13 year affair. Cain’s response? All but admitting it with a non-denial denial. It makes all the previous allegations appear plausible. Also, she has specifics – texts, call logs, etc. I’m sure it will only be a matter of time before he drops out of the race; which is probably for the best for his family.

In both cases, I went all in for a candidate only to end up feeling betrayed and disappointed in a candidate who was not who they said they were. It’s an awful feeling and one I don’t want to feel again. We all need to be careful before endorsing, but that said – much like in romance, we can not allow the failures of the past to sully our future. We can not be unwilling to endorse for fear of being called a fool. We can not predict who will turn out to be a charlatan, who has skeletons in their closet. You can’t be unwilling to endorse because a skeleton that you never could know about may come out. I can’t just assume that everyone running for public office is untrustworthy, or else I’d never vote.

Trust is important to me and those of us on the right. Limited government, in many ways, requires an informed and responsible public; it requires us to trust each person to do what is right for themselves and their family. In order to have a limited government, you have to hold a great deal of trust in the average person. I trust that I know better for myself than my Senator or my President. I feel the same way about my neighbors and my friends. This is part of why I am a conservative. This inherent public trust carries over into our politicians. Ronald Reagan was a big time truster – according to Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson, Reagan would trust those he appointed to do their job according to their ability and where they were the experts, he would trust their knowledge and their judgment. We on the right want to trust our political leaders. We are appalled when politicians prove untrustworthy and in most cases the grassroots will go after our own.

Trust is important to me and when it’s gone, it takes time to rebuild and forgive the person who appeared untrustworthy. That’s why Newt has taken until now to become politically viable. It took time to heal those past wounds. Right now I’m frustrated and betrayed. That said, I won’t let disappointment prevent me from endorsing and supporting a candidate in the future.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant / Pundit League and Tweets far too often.

Although Mitt Romney has been the frontrunner for most of the 2012 pre-primary/caucus season, and Newt Gingrich has made a remarkable comeback to become his major challenger, it might be useful, less than 40 days from the first voting in Iowa, to take a look at the other candidates and see how they might do before time and resources run out on them.

In Iowa, Michele Bachmann is pulling out all stops to remain viable for the rest of the campaign. An Iowa native who won the August Iowa Straw Poll, and with a significant Iowa organization, especially in the socially conservative religious community, her low current poll numbers may not accurately predict her true strength on January 3. She no longer appears to be as well-funded as she was several months ago, and she has to do well, that is, a second-place finish or better, in order to keep her effort credible going into New Hampshire and South Carolin where she also has serious organizational and media efforts.

Rick Perry was not too long ago expected to win the Iowa caucus, but following poor performances at several candidate debates, his poll numbers have nose-dived, and he is no longer considered a first tier candidate. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry has lots of money in his campaign treasury, and if he could somehow convince Iowa voters to take a second look at him, he might do better than expected., and be able to compete in later primaries.

Herman Cain was a media target for allegations about his private life as long as his polling “bubble” showed him to be a contender. Now that his numbers have fallen, the media stories have seemed to stop. Perhaps the larger reason for his polling decline, however, was his performance in the debates where he seemed not to have the grasp of the issues displayed by most of his rivals. It is now unlikely that Mr. Cain will regain his former standing in any of the upcoming primaries.

Ron Paul has his greatest base of support in Iowa, has run there well in a previous cycle, has a loyal libertarian following who are likely to turn out for the caucus. His results are the most difficult to predict. There is a chance he could win in Iowa, a better chance he might come in second, an odds-on chance he will come in third or fourth. Beyond Iowa, however, he has only a small (albeit loyal) following in most other states. His successful fundraising means, however, he can stay in the race until the end. If he did win Iowa, it would mean that the caucus results here would become regarded mostly as irrelevant. Iowan voters probably will not to choose such a self-inflicted political wound to their “first in the nation” status.

Rick Santorum does have some conservative support, and has spent much time in Iowa, but even if he does better than expected, it will not be enough to enable him to compete credibly past New Hampshire. John Huntsman has, more or less, ignored Iowa, and concentrated on New Hampshire where there were signs he was receiving some attention from Granite State primary voters. Newt Gingrich’s recent comeback and endorsement from the state’s most influential newspaper, however, may have torpedoed Mr. Huntsman’s opportunity to thus gain vital traction in the early voting.

Most likely, we are coming to a critical contest in the next six weeks between Mr, Romney and Mr. Gingrich. The timing of the rise of the latter in the polls could not be better, and there is little question that Mr. Gingrich will be the darling of the news headlines for the next several weeks. But now he must face an aroused Mitt Romney and his campaign staff who now realize that they must compete seriously in Iowa and try to head off the Gingrich phenomenon before it gains unstoppable momentum.

I think the first round of this battle went to the former speaker when he stated his broad immigration policy that called for long-time illegal residents who have become positive members of their communities to remain in the country. I believe that strategist/historian Gingrich wanted Mr. Romney to attack him for this, which the former Massachusetts governor promptly did, thus putting Romney on the wrong political side of an issue that will be vital to Hispanic voters in 2012. It was therefore a sophisticated “chess” move, and has given Mr. Gingrich an advantage as the primaries head south and west. I also don’t think the Gingrich stand will hurt him very much in Iowa and New Hampshire, as conventional wisdom might suggest it would, but only actual results will decide this question.

Although Mr. Romney’s support has not gained much from his poll numbers in the 20s, he has shown much resilience in the campaign so far, holding his own in the debates, and successfully portraying himself as someone in charge. His campaign caution has proved a good strategy to date, although with a major challenger now of Mr. Gingrich’s stature, he will need to come out of these safe political shadows and engage fully in the contest if he is to prevail. Friends and foes of Mr. Gingrich have lately been making the point that he is capable of self-destruction and fumbles, but so far he seems carefully pursuing a strategy that fuels his sudden rise in the polls.

This is an election cycle with incessant ups and downs, It is also a cycle in which the Old Media dominance has been overtaken by considerable impact from New Media, including internet networking, conservative radio talks show hosts, as well as a more independent and skeptical electorate.

International economic circumstances, revolutions in the Middle East, and political upheaval in Europe, as well as the chronic domestic U.S. crisis, all make surprises very possible in the eleven months before Americans choose their next president.

Iowa and New Hampshire should be interesting overtures in the U.S. 2012 election opera, but there will likely be several dramatic acts to follow.

_________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Ginger White is publicly accusing Herman Cain of carrying on a 13-year extramarital affair with her — a charge that was broadcast on the 6:00 FOX5 news in Atlanta.

The affair began, according to White, when she met Cain in the late 90s in Louisville, KY. He was the head of the National Restaurant Association at the time, met her after a presentation, and invited her back up to his hotel room. The ‘friendship’, as Cain portrays it, lasted for over a decade and included Cain flying her out to visit him on business trips in Palm Springs and multiple other cities he was visiting.

Their last physical contact was about eight months ago, according to White. Cain cut off the physical relationship before he announced he was running for President. When asked to present proof of the affair, White produced cell phone records that show 61 phone calls and text messages between White and Cain over the course of a four month period. Reporters from FOX5 texted the number to see if it was indeed Herman Cain’s cell phone, and Cain then called them back (and denied the allegations).

Cain’s lawyer released this non-denial earlier this afternoon:

“Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

Three weeks ago, this would have been an interesting development in the Republican primary horse race. Today with Cain languishing in the polls, it is a sad time for his marriage and his family. Cain has said he will stay in the race unless the accusations begin weighing on his family. It is difficult to see how they won’t at this point.