Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee “would be the definitive favorite had he been more aggressive about this process, and thus not allowed candidates like [U.S. Rep.] Michele Bachmann to gain some traction, and lost the support of key evangelicals like Danny Carroll and Kent Sorenson.” In addition, now that it seems somewhat more likely that Huckabee will officially enter the 2012 contest, one of our panelists believe the advantage is handed to more establishment candidates like former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “because it will further balkanize the more grassroots-favored candidates.”

Such perspectives have been culled from our staff members, additional state political reporters, party activists, academics, elected officials, political consultants and other insiders to create these rankings. While unscientific, the ranks provide insights that cannot be garnered in traditional polling or from any one pundit as to a candidate’s organizational strength in the Hawkeye State.

All those invited to participate are asked to answer one question: “If the Iowa caucus was held tonight, what would be the results?”

The rankings below provide a snapshot in time based on educated guesses and “gut instincts.” Campaigns were evaluated based on personal perceptions and input from others as to the quality of shoe-leather activity, ability to motivate possible caucus attendees and second-choice support. Panelists aren’t provided a specific ballot of potential candidates, and are free to choose from any Republican candidate — rumored or actual.

With all of that in mind, if the caucus was held tonight, this is how we think it would end.

1. Mike Huckabee — The victor of the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses returns to the top of our rankings for this edition, but only barely. Some of our panelists who had wiped him from their last rankings on a firm belief that he wouldn’t be running — and one panelists who had never listed him for the ranking series on a belief he wasn’t running — suddenly had to reconsider the pastor and why he continues to have so much of a draw with Iowa caucus-goers.

   Huckabee “has a name that people recognize,” said one panelist, while another noted that when you discuss Huckabee “what you see is what you get.” Although still viewed as wishy-washy when it comes to the 2012 contests, most of our panelists view Huckabee as both charismatic and consistent — two qualities seen as sorely lacking in the rest of the potential GOP field.

   “He should have the same support in Iowa, because he’s the same likable person, bringing the same message.”

   What seems to keep Huckabee from totally dominating our Power Rankings week after week is his own apparent hesitation when it comes to 2012, which has subsequently lended itself to many of Huckabee’s key Iowa staff members signing with other candidates. Now that those staffers have gone elsewhere, “he needs to act fast as the activists aren’t going to wait around forever.”

2. Michele Bachmann — Ten of our panelists use some variant of Bachmann “saying all the right things” to describe their justification for placing the Minnesota Republican near the top of their caucus night predictions.

   “In a lot of ways she is like the Sarah Palin of 2012 — coming out of seemingly nowhere and making a big splash, mostly due to her campaign rhetoric. The question is if she can hang on to the momentum or if she has already peaked.”

   Much of what happens to Bachmann in 2012 will not be self-determined, according to our panelists, but will hinge on Huckabee. If he stays away from the race, her fortunes could swell. If he gets into the race, our panelists don’t see this duo as garnering enough support between them to rank first and second on caucus night.

   “Think of Huckabee-Bachmann in Iowa 2012 like Huckabee-Fred Thompson South Carolina 2008. She drains just enough support from Huckabee to deny him the victory.

3. Tim Pawlenty — While many of our panelists spoke of candidate inconsistencies, or the feeling that several are trying to remake themselves publicly as we head into 2012, such feelings were most prevalent as panelists discussed former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

   Even while noting two more key Iowa staff pick-ups for Pawlenty — Tracie Gibler and Dane Nealson — and highly effective organizing around the Ames area (home of the Straw Poll) one our panelists notes that it is getting more difficult to look the other way as Pawlenty tries on different hats.

   “Pawlenty gets a plus for showing up at the Des Moines tea party rally in some bad weather. I was willing to given him a pass a couple of weeks ago for channeling Charlie Sheen when talking to the Iowa Federation of College Republicans convention, but he channeled both the “rent is too damn high” guy and Donald Trump (You’re fired.) at the tea party event. Some people can get away with that stuff. I’m not sure Pawlenty is one of them.”

   Most of our panelists agree, however, that the media perception of him being less fiery and uninspiring combined with his low national name recognition is playing a role in this seemingly never-ended persona revamping.

   “[Pawlenty is] still hanging around. Still not exciting.”

   But while acknowledging why Pawlenty is struggling, our Iowa panelists aren’t willing to shrug it off. Most don’t understand why Pawlenty isn’t willing to grab and hold the potential “moderate middle” that seems his natural base.

   Just like Barack Obama during 2008, “Pawlenty will be able to mobilize many volunteers” from Iowa’s neighbor state. “Key places in north Iowa have already been seeing his ads for years.”

   Another panelist notes that he could be “the ‘conservative next door,’ the trustworthy Boy Scout in the race” and that such a strategy “may make a lot of sense when all the dust settles and the moderates are looking for a place to go.”

4. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump — Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney and real estate mogul turned reality television sensation Trump are currently in a dead heat, according to our panelists.

   Romney returns to the rankings for the first time since our first edition in mid-March, largely due to recent polling that shows he continues to be favored by Republicans despite the fact that he hasn’t had much of a presence in the state for 2012.

   “There is obvious loyalty and name recognition that lingers for Romney among Iowans — and I also think that many view him as the one candidate who could effectively run a campaign against Obama’s national machine in 2012. So, as much as Iowa social conservatives would like to put an ideologist out there for the nation, they want to win back the White House even more.”

   Romney’s Achilles’ heel, say our panelists, is the fact that he pushed for a won health care reform in Massachusetts — something that was viewed as a mostly positive talking point for him during 2008.

   “Romney’s solid video announcing his Presidential Exploratory Committee made a good impression on a lot of folks. Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about ‘Romneycare’ and he needs to reassure conservative voters about some of his positions, but the opening is there for him to make some progress. He may not put as much emphasis on Iowa this time around, but he may still do well if the social conservatives are split among several other candidates.”

   “I was surprised by this week’s results of Public Policy Polling, in that between moderates Romney and Pawlenty, voters were more interested in Romney, even though he hasn’t visited the state much this year, and despite Pawlenty’s presence in Iowa he hasn’t made much impact … I will caveat this selection with the fact that once Romney’s name gets tied to Romneycare, as it likely will, I expect he’ll fall in the rankings. That said, the question is if the caucuses were held today, so he makes my list.”

   The same polling that elevated Romney seemed to diminish an Iowa standing for Trump and, in many ways, our rankings show similar results. There was not an overwhelming majority of our panelists who placed Trump in their top five, but those who did overwhelmingly ranked him high — a situation that could be an indicator that Trump is viewed as a viable second-choice by Iowa caucus-goers.

   “We laugh right now [at the thought of Trump becoming president], but a lot of us laughed when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran in California. What Trump is saying right now in the news appeals to both the hard right and the fiscal right.”

   “Despite the slings and arrows of the terrified Republican establishment, the Donald has now surged to or toward the top of most polls. The more the establishment attacks him, the better he looks. Americans are sick of slick and Trump is the beneficiary d’jour of that revulsion. Republicans will turn out in big numbers at an upcoming Republican dinner. This turnout will be the first test of Trump’s appeal to the activist base.”

5. Newt Gingrich — What keeps Gingrich in the Power Rankings week after week isn’t a surge of high-placement by a handful of panelists, but a steady flow of mostly fourth and fifth place predictions from a very diverse group that isn’t convinced Gingrich can claim support among social conservatives so focused on marriage.

   “Gingrich seems very serious about being a candidate, particularly given that he recently hired some Iowa folks for his team. He has the name recognition and gravitas to be a favorite among Republicans. The big question mark with him will be how his political and personal baggage will play. The personal issues will bother some Republicans and both will be used as points of attack by Democrats. The question will be whether Republicans will see him as too vulnerable to such attacks.”

This edition of Power Rankings also so the most mentions ever of Sarah Palin, mostly due to her appearance in Wisconsin. “Sarah again followed up a great week with a low-profile week. This follows a strange pattern in which the biggest Republican celebrity since RR (Ronald Reagan) appears ready to sweep the nomination field with long periods of little apparent activity. But the public is still talking about her appearance before the hostile crowd in Madison and this keeps her in third place.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas also continues to have his following among our panelists, but not enough for this edition to keep him in the top five. “I’m sticking by my prediction that there remains a libertarian bent to some GOP activists in Iowa and I can see Paul galvanize them.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive and radio talk show host Herman Cain also received more widespread support from our panelists than he ever has previously, but it wasn’t enough to pull him into our top five. “Cain has a small but devoted and hard-working grassroots organization, and might be the most dynamic speaker of the bunch. I don’t think he can win, but he can certainly play spoiler and play a role. He will be heavily courted for his endorsement (and to drop out) down the stretch like Tom Tancredo was in 2008.”

Others that received only passing mentions by our panelists were:

• Ambassador Jon Huntsman — “Huntsman doesn’t stand a chance. He’s too close to the Obama administration.”
• Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — “He could potentially make a bigger impact if Huckabee weren’t in the race, but the network of pastors across the state he needs to do that is still pretty loyal to Huckabee and/or impressed with Bachmann from what I understand.”
• Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — “Seems to have fallen off the face of the earth,” and “if anyone sees him they should signal with a flare.” Another panelist joked that Barbour was obviously hanging out with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and “arguing over what cabinet position they’d like to hold.”

In a single sentence, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way Monday both to congratulate the Giants and to throw a political jab at Proposition 23, which would suspend the state’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions law.

“The San Francisco Giants defeated the Texas Rangers tonight, just like California voters are going to defeat the attempts of dirty Texas oil companies to undo our clean energy laws at the polls tomorrow,” he said in a written statement.

Schwarzenegger has remained pretty firm in his environmental beliefs amid a growing wave of GOP climate skepticism, making him something of an endangered species among Republican politicians these days. Like Gov. Charlie Crist (R/I-Fla.), he’ll soon be out of office, and the number of Republicans who believe in and care about climate change will receive yet another significant blow.

The move is not completely unprecedented: South Carolina bans illegal immigrants from all public colleges. Still, most states allow illegal immigrants to attend and require them to pay out-of-state tuition, even if they grew up and attended high school in the state. Federal law bans illegal immigrants from receiving tuition benefits, but some states allow illegal immigrants who attended local high school for at least three years to pay in-state tuition. (These states are California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington.)

This has been challenged from both sides in California, where out-of-state students at California schools filed a lawsuit challenging the practice of allowing illegal immigrants to pay lower tuition rates. Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups have pushed for the California Dream Act, which would extend financial aid to illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition in the state, despite repeated vetoes from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). While Republicans have called for California to save money by banning illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition, a report this spring found only one percent of students enrolled at California schools are in the country illegally.

What does this mean for the 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from U.S. high schools each year? They will have fewer options at potentially higher costs, which could deter some from attending college. The DREAM Act, a stalled legislative effort that would allow some illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children to earn legal status, could theoretically improve these odds by removing the federal ban on tuition benefits to illegal immigrants. Still, it would remain in the hands of the states to determine whether to provide in-state tuition to undocumented students.

Granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants is in violation of a section of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which Democrats hope to repeal as part of the DREAM Act. The act would give states authority to determine whether to allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition, which many have bucked federal law to do anyway. Along with California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition if they attended high school in the state for at least three years.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a good rundown of the case:

A lawyer for 42 non-Californians who pay the higher fees at UC, state university and community college campuses argued that the statute is discriminatory and violates federal immigration law.

“One of the privileges of U.S. citizenship is not being treated worse than an illegal alien,” attorney Kris Kobach told the court at a hearing in Fresno.

Kobach, it should be noted, is also the mastermind of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law requiring police to check immigration status of those they “reasonably suspect” to be in the country illegally.

Others argue California law primarily impacts legal residents and is about reducing tuition for all students who went to high school in the state:

The state law “has enabled thousands of talented high school students … to get an affordable education,” said Ethan Schulman, lawyer for the UC regents.

California immigrant rights activists have pushed to take aid even further with the California Dream Act, which would allow undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition to apply for financial aid. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has repeatedly vetoed the bill.

Here is her answer when asked by an undocumented senior in college whether she would support the California Dream Act or the federal push for the DREAM Act to allow some undocumented students to gain legal status, via the Fresno Bee:

Here is the challenge we face. Our resources are scarce. We are in terrible economic times and slots have been eliminated at the California State University system. I think they’re down by 40,000 students. The same is true at the CSU and the University of California system. Programs have been cut and California citizens have been denied admission to these universities and I don’t think it’s fair to bar and eliminate you know the ability of California citizens to attend higher universities and favor undocumenteds. This is a very tough situation. But I don’t think it’s fair to the people who are here in California legally so I would not be for the California Dream Act and for the federal Dream Act. It is only a partial salve to a very challenging situation and I don’t think we can carve out a group of illegal immigrants and give them a path to citizenship when we haven’t sorted out our control of our borders and getting our arms around illegal immigration. So I would say no to both.

Whitman’s efforts to appeal to Latino voters seem to be a “one step forward, two steps back” process. Although she has attempted to woo Latino voters — a sizable chunk of California’s voting population at 21 percent of the electorate — through Spanish-language ads and outreach, Whitman trails Brown by 19 points among Latino voters. In the past week, advocacy groups have seized on allegations about Whitman mistreating an undocumented woman she employed as a housekeeper. Her opposition to the DREAM Act, which a majority of Latino voters support, seems unlikely to win many Latinos over.

All six Mexican governors, plus several governors-elect, are in attendance, The New York Times reported. The reason for the spat? Brewer’s SB 1070 immigration law, which prompted a boycott of the year’s original border governors conference, to be hosted by Brewer. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson stepped up in July to host the conference instead.

These conferences have been going on for years — this is the 28th, in fact — and have accomplished some real results, including agreements to share intelligence on trafficking and lobby federal governments for better border crossing infrastructure.

This year, though, the Arizona immigration law has caused some tension, the New York Times reported today:

Ms. Brewer’s name did not come up directly in the opening remarks, but Gov. Humberto Moreira Valdés of Mexico’s Coahuila State left no doubt about who he was speaking about when he praised Mr. Richardson and Mr. Maldonado for their friendship with Mexico and noted that not every border leader thought the same way. [...]

Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said the border governors typically dealt with nuts and bolts issues that cross national boundaries, like improving the border economy and helping adjacent states with firefighting. At last year’s session in Monterrey, Mexico, Mr. Richardson was also the only American governor present after others dropped out at the last minute because of scheduling concerns.

“The ongoing collaboration among the 10 border states is important,” said Mr. Selee, one of the experts who was to address the elected officials. “The meeting itself rises and falls in prominence.”

The conference is also considered good for relations with Mexico, which are important as the countries work together on drug trafficking problems. U.S.-Mexico relations recently went through a slightly tense patch when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared the situation with drug cartels there to an insurgency, much to the chagrin of Mexican politicians.

Prop 23, as I’ve blogged previously and Think Progress has enumerated in even greater detail, is an initiative sponsored by Texas independent oil refiners Valero and Tesoro. It has also received a gift of $1 million from Koch Industries. Its goal is to repeal California’s landmark law, AB 32, which seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that both sides of the fight on Prop. 23 are upping their game:

On Tuesday, the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association solicited financial support for Prop. 23 from the group’s members. “I am pleading with each of you—for our nation’s best interest and for your company’s own self-interest,” wrote Charles Drevna in an email that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. [...]

Meanwhile, a loose coalition of environmental groups and individuals, including clean-technology investors, has geared up to oppose Prop. 23.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz plans this weekend to hold a fund-raising event to fight Prop. 23 at his home near Stanford University. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a vocal opponent of Prop. 23, is expected to attend.

Tom Steyer, a San Francisco hedge-fund manager, has contributed $2.5 million to the opposition campaign, while the National Resources Defense Council has given nearly $1 million. Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr has given $500,000, according to filings.

No matter how you slice it, the environmental groups will be out-financed, but it looks like they have popular opinion among Californians on their side, for now. Meanwhile, WSJ notes that, at least so far, oil companies are divided as to whether they should pour money into the race:

Several big oil companies have steered clear of supporting Prop. 23. Royal Dutch Shell PLC opposes the measure, while Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and Chevron Corp. remain neutral. Unlike Valero and Tesoro, these oil giants have broader operations, such as finding and pumping oil, in addition to refining and marketing it. AB 32 primarily affects oil refiners, because refining emits far more greenhouse gases than the extraction of oil.

“From the standpoint of the major oil companies, they could benefit if the independents [such as Valero and Tesoro] go out of business,” said Ann Kohler, an energy analyst at Caris & Co. “There’s a sort of chess game going on.”

In Colorado, students protested Thursday outside offices for Sen. Michael Bennet. Eva Serenil, a community liason for Bennet, told The Colorado Independent Bennet supports the DREAM Act as part of comprehensive immigration reform:

“In his letter Sen. Bennet stated that it is imperative that we have a workable immigration system that balances the needs of our law enforcement, city and state government and our economy as a whole,” said Serenil. “Senator Bennet stated the Dream Act must be part of comprehensive immigration reform.”

Serenil told the Colorado Independent that the senator does not have a formalized position on the DREAM Act as a standalone bill. “I was not aware of the calls for a standalone bill before I got here.”

Reid has said he would consider passing the DREAM Act as a standalone measure, but first needs to know he would have the votes necessary to pass it. That’s not easy — Democrats aren’t all a sure “yea” vote, and even Republicans such as Orrin Hatch, who supported previous iterations of the bill, have so far declined to say they would support it this year.

Of course, it’s hard to predict how the upcoming elections will change the calculus. Republican Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina said Wednesday that she would support the DREAM Act: “I do not believe that we can punish children who through no fault of their own are here trying to live the American dream.”

In lieu of national legislation, California student activists are hoping to at least make gains with the California DREAM Act, which was passed by the state senate after vetoes in previous years. The act would allow undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition to apply for financial aid. As it heads to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, students are circulating a petition to ask him not to veto the bill.

The troops in California will be stationed across San Diego County to deter criminal activity along the border, the Los Angeles Times reported. They will not make arrests of illegal immigrants, instead acting as “a visible deterrent … and additional eyes and ears in the field,” a spokeswoman for the National Guard told the LA Times.

The Obama administration has made a concerted effort to show its commitment to border security, a prerequisite for Republican cooperation on comprehensive immigration reform. Last week, Congress passed a $600 million border security bill,  aimed in part at moving the conversation on immigration reform beyond the border. But so far Republicans are still arguing more needs to be done at the border before comprehensive immigration reform can go forward.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday deployment should not be used as an alternative to immigration reform:

“We must find a permanent solution to our broken immigration system,” he said.

“We need the federal government to step up with even more manpower and funding, and I will continue to push President Obama and Congress for action.”‘

Beyond comprehensive immigration reform, national security experts argue Congress should push for more funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration and other efforts to fight Mexican drug cartels. As Bob Killebrew, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told TWI: “We can react to crises with pinpricks, like sending more National Guard troops, but the real solutions are more complicated,” he said.

- Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law had its first day in court Thursday, when a judge heard a challenge of the law from a Phoenix police officer but issued no ruling. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will hear the case brought by the Justice Department against SB 1070 next week. Arizona will have support in the form of “friend-of-the-court” briefs from nine state attorney generals — three of whom are Republicans running for governor — and a group of House Republicans.

- Immigration enforcement is at a new high, with 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. That was the largest number of referrals for any two-month period since the creation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

- Arizona’s immigration law convinced some migrant workers from Mexico to stay home, prompting observers to question whether unemployed Americans will take on the tough harvest jobs. (It’s what Stephen Colbert wants Americans to do.)

- A list of 1,300 accused illegal immigrants living in Utah and their private information was circulated early this week to government agencies and media. Utah launched an investigation into the source of the information and announced today that at least two state employees appear to be behind the list. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said the state does not plan to prosecute people on the list, but will move forward on possible privacy law violations by the list’s creators.

- Rep. Xavier Becerra, (D-Calif.), the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Tuesday the Dems could still tackle immigration reform this year. If they do, Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.) want to include provisions for gay rights.

- The Mexico-U.S. border governors conference is back on after Arizona’s Jan Brewer pulled out of hosting last month. Arizona was set to host the 28th annual conference, but Brewer canceled after Mexican politicians threatened to boycott. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Thursday that he will host the conference instead, but it still won’t be complete: Brewer and Rick Perry of Texas said they won’t attend.

- Haitians living illegally in the U.S. when a hurricane hit six months ago will be given additional time to apply to stay and work in the country legally.

- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a deployment Friday of California National Guard troops to the border. The order will support Obama’s proposal to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, with 224 stationed in California. Schwarzenegger’s order said the troops deployed will not be used in a direct law enforcement role.