GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich today announced campaign chairs and co-chairs for all of Florida’s 67 counties.

The Miami Herald reports that GOP state Reps. Michael Bileca and Carlos Trujillo will chair and co-chair (respectively) Gingrich’s campaign committee in Miami-Dade County, and Rep. Debbie Mayfield will chair the Indian River County committee.

Gingrich hired Jose Mallea, former campaign chief for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, as his Florida campaign director last week.

The Herald cites a Newt 2012 press release issued today that includes other Republicans close to Rubio: Monica Rodriguez, a former aide to Rubio in the Florida House; Karin Hoffman; Sam Rashid, chairman of the Rubio for Senate campaign in Hillsborough County; Dr. Miguel Fana, finance chair for Rubio for Senate; and Tony DiMatteo, the county chair for Rubio in Pinellas County.

The Herald adds that more than 20 “Gingrich backers were on Herman Cain’s team until his campaign fell apart.”

The release adds: “‘Campaigns are won on the ground and through the hard work of grassroots activists such as those who have joined Newt Gingrich’s team in Florida,’ said Deborah Cox Roush, Florida State Director of County Chairs.”

The list of Gingrich supporters in Florida brings together GOP members who in the past have supported among others John McCain and Sarah Palin, former President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, Bill McCollum, Gov. Rick Scott, Rep. Allen West and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

From ABC News:

“By providing in state tuition for those who are not residents of his state, because the illegal immigrants who are there — they are not even obviously — not residents of America legally much less the state of Texas,” Palin said. “It sounds like Rick Perry is having a heck of a time trying to explain his position on illegal immigration when he has incentivized some to be able to really grasp a benefit that the majority of Americans would never be able to take an advantage of: in state tuition in the state of Texas.”

Unlike ABC News and The Colorado Independent, Firedoglake just couldn’t resist having some fun with this latest Palin effort to be relevant.

Our 14th edition of the GOP Power Rankings is compiled in the same way as our first was in March. We rely on the opinions and predictions of Iowans — academics, grassroots activists, political reporters and consultants. As part of the caucus process, these are the individuals most closely watching the candidates and their campaigns and they are best able to provide a snapshot in time based on volunteer excitement, Iowa appearances, grassroots support and state and national messaging. In short, the 2012 contest isn’t their first rodeo. So, even if not scientific, the Rankings have proven to be a valuable tool in determining trends within the presidential field.

For this particular edition, there are numerous trends emerging — so many, in fact, that it is difficult to make any broad statements of fact concerning the field. The candidate that was miles ahead weeks ago, is bottoming out. An old favorite appears to be renewing. Perhaps most importantly, a candidate that isn’t expected to take Iowa appears to be the most significant benefactor of the uncertainty.

So, if the caucuses were held today, this is the way the Power Rankings panelists think the night would end:

1. Rick Perry — As was the case for our last edition, we must caution against too much being read into our top placement of the Texas governor. What the panelists see is soft support. That is support that seems ready to go elsewhere … if only such an elsewhere would actually materialize.“Perry came on to the scene strong, but has done absolutely nothing since that time to keep himself in the top slot — barely enough one-on-one or small group appearances, where he does do well, to keep him in the top tier,” a panelist notes.

   Another adds, “Perry’s debate performances have been dismal, and that’s probably the best that I can say about it. The campaign right now is level, like a playground teeter-totter, and can simply fall either way.”

   In the past, even as national polls barely registered the presidential aspirations of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the panelists were able to judge staff choices and ground game to keep him in their top three. Unfortunately, they are not seeing the necessary organization being built by Perry in the Hawkeye State. Without such a firm foundation, they surmise, the campaign simply cannot sustain a persistent onslaught of negative national polling and news stories.

   “Where is the Perry organization? Have you seen it? Have you felt it? I haven’t. It’s as if he wanted to come into the Iowa as ‘the chosen’ and ride through the caucuses on the belief that he was the guy who could rally all the facets of the GOP. Now that maybe his team has found that to be true, perhaps his Iowa activists will receive more than telephoned explanations of bad national performances. Maybe we’ll see a little retail politicking.”

2. Ron Paul — While Perry barely maintains the top slot because his support is perceived as being soft, Paul remains in second for the opposite reason: a very firm core of support.“Is Dr. Paul the GOP’s guy? No, I still don’t think that’s the case. But what I do see is him being the only person in Iowa who has an existing base and who is rallying that base,” a panelist said.

   Another adds, “The increasing fracturing of the conservative base opens the door for Paul, who at this point is the only candidate who seems to have loyal supporters willing to vote for him no matter what.”

   As the panelists have previously noted, however, there seems to be little, if any, growth for Paul in Iowa.

   “[Paul] may gain a few folks who put emphasis on the fiscal issues. As usual, however, Paul’s positions on other issues will tend to drive the broader Republican base.

   “Paul called the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki an ‘assassination.’ Even though some might not be troubled by the use of that word, Paul certainly meant it in a negative way and it brought to mind his prior comments about how we (the U.S.) brought this on ourselves. Regardless of how Republicans feel about the manner in which al Awlaki met his death, not many beyond the libertarian base agree with Paul’s more isolationist rhetoric.”

   More troubling for Paul is the fact that while his campaign scored well in the Ames Straw Poll, it hasn’t performed to the same level in other straw polls that do not open voting to all individuals who attend. For instance, in Florida and Michigan the Paul campaign earned 10 and 8 percent, respectively.

   “If the caucuses are held in the middle of a blizzard, Paul’s supporters are faithful enough that they are going to be there. The same can’t be said generally of the other candidates’ supporters at this time. If the other supporters don’t show, Paul wins Iowa and wins big. But if he is forced to go toe-to-toe with others, he continues to garner his 15 percent, which isn’t enough to win on caucus night.”

3. Mitt Romney — It’s been said that roughly 60 percent of the Iowa GOP is a social or religious conservative, and that this demographic has historically found the former Massachusetts governor unappealing as a Republican presidential nominee.What 2012 is showing, however, is that when religious and social conservatives are fractured, an opening exists for Romney — even when he is not actively campaigning in the state.

   “Iowans may have ‘new eyes’ for Romney, but he’ll have a tough time winning over the more conservative (and often more fervent) voters here. He’ll, of course, have to spend more time in the state before the caucus, whenever those will be, to stay at the top. But for now he tops the list, simply because the other candidates’ stars seem to be fading and Chris Christie keeps saying ‘no.’”

   The most interesting thing about U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann‘s message of “don’t settle,” is that it is already a well-kept campaign chant among Iowa’s most conservative Republicans.

   “There is no one candidate that the social conservatives find appealing enough to embrace and unify around. That candidate doesn’t exist right now. And, more to the point, that candidate was never going to be Bachmann for the simple fact that she is female — something that the most orthodox find objectionable in a president. … What comes of the GOP’s social conservatives not settling is a widespread base that benefits only those candidates that are generally found exceptionally unappealing to those voters. Specifically, a common decision to not ‘settle’ benefits Romney, especially here in Iowa.”

   While this is a common thread of agreement by our panelists, it is not an unanimous sentiment.

   “Romney doesn’t have the organization in place to capitalize in IA on the concerns being shown regarding Perry or Bachmann.”

   “Regardless of what the polls say, Willard is damaged goods in Iowa, and given his lack of presence in the state he clearly knows that.”

4. Michele Bachmann — The campaign for the Minnesota congresswoman is on a downward spiral in Iowa, but continues to hang on by the thread of smart organization.“Here we are, only a few weeks removed from a truly impressive performance in Ames, and it is all but forgotten. Michele Bachmann was always going to push against those who want ‘electability’ in their final choice, but now she seems to be pushing against everything and everyone else too. I don’t see a current scenario where she places better than third. … I’ll also predict that if her staff and volunteers don’t do something fairly quick, she’s going to land behind former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on caucus night. Yes, it has gotten that bad for her.”

   Going into the Ames Straw Poll, our panelists were in nearly unanimous agreement that Bachmann was the person to beat. And, since many expected her to walk away from Ames as the front-runner in Iowa, many were expecting that she would continue to gain momentum throughout the fall and into the winter.

   The panelists are also firmly grounded in reality and, as such, understood there would be bumps in the campaign — Perry being one of many. But through the rankings and the comments, it was clear that Bachmann was a candidate they believed would continue to pull support as a result of her consistent conservative messaging and her networking of other social conservatives.

   While many are at a loss to explain exactly why they have now soured on Bachmann as a front-runner, it has become clear that many no longer view her as being among the top-tier candidates in Iowa. As of this edition, none of the panelists placed her in their top slot. More to the point, less than 15 percent of our group put her in the top three.

   “[T]urnout on caucus night is critical and she will have more staff and volunteers making turnout calls than Romney’s people will. Bachmann has started to argue that caucus-goers need not ‘settle,’ meaning that they need not select a moderate candidate because the media believes that person has a better chance against Obama. This is basically a swipe at Romney, but it’s also a way for her to argue that she’s not too conservative. If this argument doesn’t resonate or she continues to fade, then we might see her supporters begin to look elsewhere, such as Cain or Santorum.”

5. Herman Cain — The Atlanta businessman appears to be a reluctant, but nonetheless bright spot for Republicans as the rest of the nation begins to take notice of him and his supporters begin a revitalization effort in the Hawkeye State.“The week before the straw poll, I would have said that Herman Cain was a no-go, but now I’m not so sure. I’m seeing some real excitement among those who supported him earlier in the cycle. It’s still not looking like an easy victory for Cain in Iowa, but the expectations are so low that even a third place finish would be a big boost.”

   “I think there are a large group of activists who are ‘Anybody But Romney’ voters. They continue to look to unite behind a legitimate conservative contender. Herman Cain has enough current buzz to seize [my] second position.”

   Perhaps the most difficult aspect of a Cain resurgence is that many in Iowa already believe they’ve given him an opportunity.

   “There is little chance Cain can win Iowa despite the positive publicity he has received as of late, because Iowans have already vetted him and moved on.”

   “I’m not convinced that Cain’s strong performance in Florida came at his own hands or by his own merit. It seems to me that those casting straw poll votes wanted to send a message, and they used Cain as their carrier. No doubt some will find that assessment harsh, but I don’t see Cain taking the GOP nomination. The best he can do here in Iowa is play spoiler, but sucking enough votes from others to allow someone like Romney through the gate.”

It is interesting to note that this edition of Power Rankings came at a time following tours of the state by both former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Santorum. Despite that fact, both men were largely ignored by the panelists.

While this is not necessarily unusual when using our last six months of rankings as a measure of what is normal, it still doesn’t bode well for either campaign.

In Iowa, just as in the other early states, some voters continue to remain on the sidelines as they await final, final, final decisions from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. For that reason alone, the field remains in somewhat of a holding pattern that won’t resolve until either Iowa caucus night or definitive answers are given.

Those hurt most by the waiting game are candidates like Santorum and Gingrich, who want to play in Iowa but are having difficulty getting the national attention of pundits and/or donors to launch a solid effort.

Finally, while Iowans have never been completely immune to national discussion, polls and other campaign flap that happens outside of the state’s boundaries, there appears to an abundance of perception being formed in the 2012 season that are at least loosely linked to outside influences. This can also be detrimental to candidates who are not receiving national attention, and those who are relying on their performance here in Iowa to be the largest determining factor on caucus night.

To put it another way, roughly 40 percent of our panelists mentioned Santorum’s campaign. Of that 40 percent, the vast majority (more than 70 percent) noted his national performances, not his grassroots campaigning in Iowa. During the past week, Santorum has been beating the bushes in small Iowa towns and, based on ground accounts, has been making notable headway among supporters.

It’s not shocking that Santorum’s ground game has gone unnoticed by the national media or those contacted for national polls. (For proof, compare the number of shocked Iowa faces to national faces on caucus night 2008 when Huckabee was announced.) It is quite unusual, however, for there to be little acknowledgement and praise among Iowa activists for a candidate who is obviously working hard in the state — especially in an election cycle that remains as open to a shake-up as this one seems to be.

“Does a title shackle a person?” Palin mused with Fox News host Greta VanSustren when asked about any potential upcoming candidate announcement.

“Are they — someone like me, who is maverick — you know, I do go rogue and I do call it as I see it and I don’t mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively and find solutions to the problems our country is facing. [For] somebody like me, is a title and a campaign too shackling? Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers shape me and force my message to be what donors or what contributors or what political pundits want it to be? Does a title take away my freedom to call it like a see it and to affect positive change that we need in this country? That’s the biggest contemplation piece in my process.”

Palin added, later in the same conversation topic, that she does believe she could win the election if she decides to run.

The discussion regarding Palin’s possible White House bid begins at roughly the 9 minute mark in the clip below.

Jindal joins a host of GOPers including confirmed presidential contenders Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Georgia business owner Herman Cain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Other confirmed speakers include House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Steve King (R-Iowa). Among the unconfirmed speakers are Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Every candidate or current congressional leader invited to attend the Values Voter Summit, scheduled for Oct. 7-9 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, is a Republican.

FRC Action — and co-sponsors American Family Values, the Heritage Foundation, Liberty University and Liberty Counsel — have invited several anti-abortion-rights activists including Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, Live Action President Lila Rose and former Planned Parenthood Clinic Worker Catherine Adair.

The three-day conference will include a presidential straw poll and breakout sessions that cover topics such as using religion to impact policy, mobilizing minority communities, and defunding Planned Parenthood.

As The American Independent sister site The Minnesota Independent previously reported, past Values Voter Summits (this is the sixth) tend to create controversy. For example, in 2008, vendors sold “Obama Waffles” with packaging many viewed as racist. Past summit speakers have claimed the anti-Christ will be a gay man, and a preacher made the case that it’s okay to call gays “faggots.”

In a web seminar sponsored by the Business Ethics Network last week, groups concerned about the role of money in politics gathered to review strategies for increased disclosure.

Norm Ornstein, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, who once helped craft the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, said that he was struck and “even a little bit heartened” by the fact that Sarah Palin railed against crony capitalism during her Labor Day speech in Iowa saying, in effect, “what do we suppose those fat cats want for their money?”

“It suggests to me,” Ornstein said, “that there is at least a glimmer of a possibility that we might be able to build a very unusual type of coalition against what has become an utterly appalling landscape of influence peddling by enormous monied interests and more and more overt, almost shakedown schemes by political figures to get the money they want from corporations and individuals.”

The Citizens United decision did not strike down any rules that require disclosure of political spending, but loopholes in the tax system and lax campaign finance rules allow corporations to give money in ways that are very hard to track, disclosure advocates say.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2010 election 67 percent of all outside (non political party) spending came from groups that had been freed to contribute by the Citizens United decision with non-profit 501(c) groups dominating spending on election ads.

IRS rules state that 501(c)(4) groups don’t have to name their contributors as long as electioneering is not their primary purpose, but this can be difficult to enforce in a meaningful way. Groups can form and carry out campaign work and then later switch to other activities so that political projects don’t appear to dominate their activities.

With Congress deadlocked over most issues, campaign finance reform advocates say it’s more prudent to focus on promoting regulatory measures that could increase disclosure.

One possibility would be to get the IRS to enforce its requirements for 501(c)(4)s. Another would be to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to report their political spending to shareholders.

Aside from the way it could corrupt the political process, experts point out, unregulated corporate spending on politics poses risks for company shareholders.

Ten corporate law academics recently petitioned the SEC to adopt rules to require that corporations communicate with shareholders about political use of corporate funds.

The idea has support from major institutional investors including the International Corporate Governance Network, which represents $18 trillion in assets.

Any rule change at SEC will be a time consuming process. In the meantime some groups are trying to get corporations to voluntarily release information about their political spending.

Since 2003 the Center for Political Accountability has been working to get companies to establish rules for disclosure of political spending and shareholder oversight.

Valentina Judge of CPA said that such resolutions are good business practices that can protect companies from embarrassing contributions that can cause reputational damage.

The Target corporation learned the pitfalls of political donations last year, she pointed out.

The company endured bad press and boycott threats after it made a $150,000 donation to a group that supported a candidate opposed to gay rights.

CPA is preparing to release an index of corporations that have adopted policies on corporate spending.

It’s urgent that groups focus on disclosure strategies that could work fast, said Craig Holman of Public Citizen.

“We just was a 427 percent increase in outside spending in the 2010 election,” he said, “This is a phenomenal increase … and this was just a test run, a trial. Corporations and CEOs were just starting to get involved and were pretty cautious.”

In the 2012 elections, he said, “I believe we are going to see numbers that are off the charts.”

The only thing that could force more disclosure right away would be an executive order from President Obama, he said.

“We need President Obama to step up to the plate and sign an order requiring enhanced political disclosure for contractors to show that contracts are being based on merit and not contributions.”

Another short term effort could involve getting the president to appoint a Federal Elections Commissioner who would work to require funding disclosure on television ads, said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.

The most pressing need, however, she said, is is a public education campaign to translate the current situation around corporate funded politics into terms that meet average Americans.

“You have to build a public base before you can get into specific answers,” she said. “The pot is not yet boiling.”

“The reality is that the other side that is supporting this outcome is outgunning the reform community and those that see the problem by a million to one,” she said. “It doesn’t mean give up. It means you’ve got to start thinking about 21 century solutions and approaches.”

CNN is reporting that Palin sources have said organizers for the “Restoring American Event” have been “dishonest” about the speaking program and rally promotion, and that Palin is no longer likely to attend.

The rally is being sponsored by Tea Party of America, a newer group that has little experience with hosting such a large event. On Tuesday, for instance, there was a mix-up on whether or not Christine O’Donnell, a previous Senate candidate from Delaware and a tea party favorite, would be in attendance.

A source close to Plain was even more blunt with The Wall Street Journal, saying Palin’s appearance was “no longer confirmed” and citing “continual lying” from event organizers that involved not only the O’Donnell appearance but fundraising and unapproved logistical changes. The source said there could possibly be another event scheduled in Iowa this weekend, or Palin could ultimately decide to appear at the Indianola event.

Local organizers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Tea Party Express announced Tuesday evening that Palin will be speaking at their Labor Day rally in New Hampshire on Monday, which Palin’s PAC has confirmed.

On the Republican side of the aisle, Perry leads with 24 percent. Romney holds second place with 18 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin takes bronze with 11 percent (if undecideds at 16 percent aren’t counted), but is followed closely by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann with 10 percent. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is another step lower at 9 percent. No other candidates break the 5 percent mark.

Although most voters polled (51 percent) indicated that Obama did not deserve to be re-elected, the Democratic incumbent still maintains a narrow lead or ties when pitted against the GOP nominee hopefuls. A Romney-Obama match-up results in a 45 percent tie. When placed against Perry, Obama claimed 45 percent while Perry garners 42.

There is also other concerning news for the man three national polls have now said is the GOP frontrunner. According to Quinnipiac, more than half of all voters — 55 percent — don’t know enough about him to say whether or not they view him favorably. Of the 45 percent that have formed an opinion, 23 percent view him unfavorably.

With the Ames Straw Poll a memory and, thanks in part to a timed entry by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, showing very little bounce for the top two finishers, our panelists seem more intent on the political end game and which candidate has the mixture of organization, charisma and “that special something” to take the race all the way to the finish line.

If the caucuses were held tonight, here’s how our panel believes they would end:

1. Rick Perry — Despite the fact that the governor of Texas hasn’t yet proven himself from an organizational standpoint in the Hawkeye State — and won’t likely have to in advance of the caucuses due to his later entry — our panelists cannot deny that Perry has brought something to the race that has been missing.

   “Many activists have said to me, ‘I’ve been holding out for a winner!’ Republican activists may agree with the agenda of a [Michele] Bachmann or a [Rick] Santorum, but they aren’t convinced those candidates can beat Obama. There’s a buzz around Perry that says he can,” notes one of our panelists.

   Others on our panel, however, are curious if Perry’s lead is more of a honeymoon period — something that will wane as the newness of his candidacy wears off.

   “His current buzz does make him the flavor of the month — just like [Mike] Huckabee and [Donald] Trump before him — but there is more to him than just that,” notes another panelist. “He appeals to all segments of the party, [at least] to varying degrees. That huge undecided number that keeps showing up in Iowa polls may have found their hairstyle of choice.”

   Candidates may rise on appeal, but they must have substance to win the first-in-the-nation caucuses. What the panel wants to see from Perry going forward are signals that his campaign is organizing at the grassroots level in Iowa, working the ground and drawing increased support.

   “If the caucuses were held today Perry would instantly coalesce a group of former Tim Pawlenty supporters and soft supporters of others to finish very strong, but at this point in time he doesn’t have the organization on the ground to marshal enough of them to pull it out.

   “Still, there is little denying the initial roll-out of his candidacy has been impressive and, if things keep trending the way they currently are, he’s the one to beat.”

   Perry’s performance in upcoming debates and his interactions on the campaign trail in Iowa and other early states could still sway his candidacy further up or down. And, while it is unlikely that more fiscally-minded Republicans would be swayed by the entry of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the race, it is likely that some more socially-minded Iowa conservatives could. That could spell trouble for Perry’s honeymoon, at least in Iowa.

   “While it is true that there are some who simply won’t support a woman, there are some who will — even if that woman is Palin, who comes with history. She still appeals to a segment of the GOP that feels America hasn’t been promoted in that Ronald Reagan style it should be, and there is no one, perhaps other than Reagan himself, who makes Republicans feel better about themselves than Palin. That’s her advantage over other conservatives already in the race including Bachmann, although Bachmann has been pulling such references into her own speeches. Such ‘lifting up’ by Palin will be hard for Iowans to resist.”

2. Michele Bachmann — For the first time since late June, the Minnesota Congresswoman doesn’t lead our Hawkeye State Power Rankings and, perhaps more importantly, she came dangerously close to being knocked out of the top two.

   Since late March, when Bachmann began to seriously hint that she would pursue a White House bid, she has remained a favorite of our panelists. They viewed her as someone who could appeal to the state’s influential social conservative base as well as a candidate that could count on support from the tea party movement — both being influential for the upcoming caucuses. The straw poll should have been a proving grounds for her Iowa organizational skills (and to a certain extent it was) but, under the shadow of a Perry announcement, it simply didn’t provide a large boost.

   “Winning the straw poll still has its privileges. One of those privileges is a vastly superior organization compared to a guy who’s been in the race for only two weeks, and has just made a handful of stops in Iowa while facing no real scrutiny from voters or his fellow competitors yet. That said, Bachmann is not trending in the right direction at the moment, and she needs to recapture the momentum she had heading into Ames. Perhaps letting voters see the woman of depth I have seen privately, and not the woman of talking points I often see publicly, is a good place to start.”

   Another panelist notes that “Bachmann still has two big things going for her in Iowa: She’s from a neighboring state, which can only benefit her when it comes to ground organization, and she’s a known quantity.

   “Let’s face the fact that despite some of rifts here in our state, many of which have been promulgated by supporters of other candidates, Bachmann is someone that activists here know and know well. There is very little shock value left when says things that maybe don’t completely add up, or when she ruffles feathers in local circles. It’s expected, and just like all other expectations in Iowa, when she exceeds them — when says things that really resonate and does well with retail politics — she really, really shines. If she comes into the state and works even the smallest bit to dispel some of the more negative press, it will do her campaign a world of good and she will win on caucus night.”

   Criticisms leveled by Pawlenty that Bachmann was prone to misstatements may not have ultimately benefited his campaign, but our panelists believe they likely injured Bachmann’s, at least to some extent.

   “One can dismiss occasional things like mixing up whether John Wayne was born in Winterset or Waterloo and maybe even whether August 16 was Elvis’s birthday or the day he died, but at some point one will start to wonder whether it’s just an occasional flub or a pattern that is worrisome. Recently Bachmann claimed that if she becomes president gas prices would go down to $2 a gallon. That’s not a factual mistake, but it certainly caused a lot of people, including a lot on the right, to roll their eyes. Bachmann fought hard to make herself be perceived as a serious, top-tier candidate. She needs to stop the mistakes if she expects to maintain that standing.”

3. Ron Paul — The biggest news to come out of Texas congressman’s presidential bid in the wake of the straw poll were news reports that he was being ignored in the wake of his strong second-place finish. Our panelists took note of the strong finish, and they continue to believe that overall Paul’s fiscal message is resonating better with state activists than it did in 2007. But when it comes to the game of expectations, they feel Paul just managed to meet them in Ames and, thus, didn’t do anything overly extraordinary to warrant higher placement.

   “Paul’s supporters certainly don’t want to hear it, but he probably peaked at the straw poll,” notes one panelist. “There were plenty of stories during the last two weeks about how the media were ignoring Paul’s very close second place finish straw poll. I suspect that it was less a matter of purposefully ignoring Paul as opposed to choosing to focus their resources on candidates who were perceived as more likely to be able to capture the nomination.

   “Paul received over three times as many votes at the Straw Poll as he did in 2007. That speaks to both an improved organization and more focus on his economic message. Even so, when Paul starts to speak on other issues his libertarian roots show themselves. Many Republicans are not happy with the wars we are fighting, but they usually don’t think that we should just pull back to our borders. Some Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana, but that position isn’t one widely held. In other words, despite his obvious success at the Straw Poll, Paul will have a difficult time appealing to a broader Republican base.”

   Another panelist has already moved on to wonder where the libertarians and similar factions of the party will go when “they finally figure out that their guy is not moving forward in this process.”

   “Look, there’s a lot to be said for loyalty, and there is no doubt that Ron Paul’s supporters are loyal — but I have to wonder if they’ve ever heard the phrase about being ‘loyal to a fault.’ At this point, I don’t think they are doing their candidate any favors by ramping up his expectations to levels that he doesn’t actually have the base support to meet.”

   Another panelist believes Paul could have won the straw poll — and beat expectations — if it wasn’t for his debate performance two nights before.

   “His organization flexed its muscle at the straw poll, and that strong second place finish came after his brutal debate performance just 48 hours prior. That tells me two things: Paul’s support isn’t going anywhere, and Paul can’t grow beyond that base of support. I believe Paul would’ve won the Straw Poll if not for his queasy answer on Iran and nuclear weapons. That moment in that debate illustrated the dynamic Paul finds himself in. The current economic climate in the country has made his base coalition more loyal than ever because he’s been proven right all these years. On the other hand, his foreign policy positions are still too far out there to grow that coalition to a winning coalition.”

4. Mitt Romney — There are more questions than answers surrounding the former governor of Massachusett’s campaign. That is, his Iowa strategy or, more aptly, his lack of an Iowa strategy seemed pretty well mapped out in advance of Perry’s entry. Our panelists now wonder if ignoring the Hawkeye State, or keeping Iowa activists at arms length, is going to be enough to put him in the state’s top three — something he critically needs to do, even if he is banking on a New Hampshire victory.

   As one panelist notes, “Mitt still has the 23 percent he’s had since he started his presidential campaign (back in junior high school).”

   But there’s more than just low poll numbers at stake. Romney was hoping residual 2008 supporters and here-and-there visits to Iowa would be enough to keep him “playable” in the first-in-the-nation caucuses. He had, for all practical purposes, conceded the state to a more social conservative candidate of the same ilk as a Huckabee — someone that the other early states wouldn’t find as appealing as his more moderate, if not sometimes conflicted, stances. But if Iowa and another of the leading four states go to the same candidate, Romney’s weak performances could be enough to shut him down before the contest moves on to states that are decided more by ad buys than retail politics (where he doesn’t necessarily excel).

   “If a four candidate field emerges from the starting four states, that bodes well for Romney, who is extremely well financed and can move into a Super Tuesday situation with multiple ad buys and other voter outreach. But if Perry is able to land claim to both Iowa and South Carolina, Romney will need to provide more than just a New Hampshire victory. He will need to take Nevada, which might be possible because there is strong Mormon representation there. So far, however, I’ve not seen Romney doing retail in anywhere other than New Hampshire, and not a actively there as he did in Iowa in 2007.

   “Either Romney will need to start paying more attention to Iowa, which isn’t likely given the past history, or he is going to have to start concentrating more heavily on South Carolina, which also isn’t likely given that state also has a social conservative bent, or in Nevada. He simply cannot allow any one candidate to pull more of a boost than he does from these early contests.”

5. Rick Santorum — Most of our panelists agree that Santorum has a loyal following in Iowa based predominantly on his rigid social conservative stances. Most also agree that his base support has not yet grown to a point of making him a real contender in the upcoming caucuses, and that they aren’t sure where he will be able to garner more supporters in this current field of candidates.

   “If this was 2007, Santorum would probably be faring better than he is now,” a panelist laments. “The fact of the matter is that you can’t build a campaign on issues — fiscal or conservatives — that are also held by your opponents. He doesn’t have anything, at least not yet, that makes him stand apart from the field. He doesn’t have executive experience. He lost his last election. He doesn’t have a compelling story to tell and, as a result, he seems to be a candidate that many activists like personally but are not supporting for the nomination.”

   While a handful of our panelists still envision a scenario where Santorum could play spoiler (a la Huckabee 2008), even most of those believe his fortunes, good or bad, may actually rest with the undecided candidacy of Palin.

   “Obviously, if Palin enters the race, there will be automatic buzz within social conservative circles — the same circles where Santorum has made the most headway. That could spell trouble for his campaign both from a standpoint of an established base, and from the standpoint of her much greater name recognition — which might be more appealing for any undecideds on caucus night.

   “On the other side of that coin, if Palin decides not to run, there could be some social conservatives that have been holding their support that will move toward Santorum, giving him a greater edge on caucus night when Iowans speak on behalf of their chosen candidates before the GOP balloting. Such conservatives can give very impassioned speeches that can really help their chosen candidate.”

   Unlike Democratic caucuses where second choices can play a distinct and defining role, GOP caucuses are a single secret ballot affair devoid of realignment and viability thresholds. So, just because Santorum appears to be a second-choice candidate for many, the situation doesn’t serve him as well as it would on the other side of the political aisle.

   “There is a solid base of former Huckabee supporters I know that just will never buy into Bachmann’s presidential candidacy until they have to because they’re either uncomfortable with a woman for president, and/or she has not proven to them she’s ready for the job. On the other hand, Huckabee himself has done little to hide his skepticism of Perry, who chose to endorse Rudy Giuliani over Huckabee four years ago. So who’s the alternative? Clearly not Ron Paul, who some Huckabee supporters are as leery of as they are Mitt Romney — albeit for different reasons. That leaves Santorum, who more and more has been speaking their language the past few weeks.”

Current Texas Gov. Rick Perry may see the crowded field as evidence of a power vacuum in need of occupation. However, his own polling numbers aren’t so formidable right now, either — showing him to be on the same echelon as (or, if anything, slightly lower than) fellow Texan Ron Paul. This, of course, has the potential to change dramatically if Perry formally announces his candidacy and seriously pursues the GOP nomination.

In July 1999, Bush was the favorite of 59 percent of Republicans, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey (retrieved via PollingReport.com). At the time, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s support was at 3 percent, and it increased fairly steadily until March 2000, reaching 30 percent. Bush’s, meanwhile, stayed at around 60 percent, according to the series of surveys.

In January 1999, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll pegged Elizabeth Dole as Republicans’ top choice, getting 30 percent of the vote, compared to 18 percent for Bush, who hadn’t formed his campaign committee yet. A Gannet poll around the same time had Bush leading Dole 39-22 percent, though.

In June 1999, a Washington Post survey showed Bush leading the GOP field with 49 percent of the vote, Dole second with 20 percent, “undecided” at 7 percent, and then the rest. Dole would drop her campaign in the fall, giving McCain room to work his best efforts.

This year, nearly all of the latest polls show former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as the GOP frontrunner, but with only about 25 percent of the Republican vote, according to an average of polls maintained by RealClearPolitics.

A new IBOPE Zogby/Newsmax poll purports to show that Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann leapt ahead of Romney following the announcement of her candidacy and her exceeding of minimal expectations during the June 13 GOP presidential debate, according to the Christian Post. Bachman was the pick of 24 percent of survey respondents, followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (who adamantly says he’s not running) with 17 percent, Romney with 15 percent, Herman Cain with 15 percent and Texas U.S. Rep. Paul with 13 percent.

According to Newsmax, the survey also showed Christie trouncing Romney in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, 62-19 percent, and Perry also easily beating Romney, 55-22 percent. While Christie is more popular than Romney among conservative and moderate Republicans, Perry is more popular than Romney among conservatives Republicans but less popular than Romney among moderate Republicans. Romney is most popular among liberal Republicans.

Aside from that piece of good news, however, Perry has generally been a nonfactor in national GOP presidential polls — much of that probably due to the fact that he’s not running yet and hasn’t usually been included in the polls.

According to the RealClearPolitics aggregation of polls, however, Perry has been an option in three of nine national surveys, and has an average support level of 5 percent. By comparison, fellow Texan Paul grabs 7 percent of the vote. Bachmann’s average support level is 6 percent — but the only poll taken after the GOP debate, by Rasmussen, showed her with 19 percent of the GOP vote (second to Romney’s 33 percent in that poll).

Meanwhile, a Dick Morris Poll conducted June 18-19 showed Romney leading the GOP field with 23 percent of the vote, followed by Bachmann and Paul, who each had 12 percent, then Perry, Cain and Newt Gingrich, each with 5 percent. According to theHouston Chronicle’s Texas on the Potomac blog:

“”Rick Perry shows weakness in the polling that might cause him to reconsider running for president,” Morris concluded. “As governor of Texas, he is already well known, particularly in the South. If he cannot produce more than a 5 percent vote share nationally or do better than 9 percent in his (home) region, he is not showing much strength.””

In opposition to the Zogby poll, the Dick Morris Poll showed that “The establishment Republicans who are Romney’s real first round opponents all do very poorly when measured against him,” according to Potomac.

According to Gallup — and in contrast to Zogby’s take — the June 13 GOP debate failed “to shake up” GOP candidates’ ratings among Republicans. Rather than asking respondents who their top candidate is, Gallup attempts to measure each candidate’s “Positivity Intensity Score” — the difference between the percentage of respondents with a strongly favorable opinion of the candidate, and those with a strongly unfavorable opinion of the candidate — together with each candidate’s level of recognition among respondents. (Perry’s not included in the Gallup series of polls.)

By Gallup’s metric, Sarah Palin, Romney and Bachmann are the only candidates with above-average ‘Positive Intensity Scores’ and above-average name-recognition.

While Cain’s ‘Positive Intensity Score’ has dipped in June, Bachmann’s rose, and Romney’s and Palin’s stayed level. Paul, meanwhile, has above-average name-recognition but a below-average ‘Positive Intensity Score,” putting him in company with Gingrich.