The study averaged the net worth of each member. When members file their financial disclosure statements, they list assets and liabilities as part of minimum and maximum bet worth and CRP averaged those. For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported a minimum net worth of $345,029 and a maximum of $1,104,000 for an average net worth of $724,512.

In Minnesota politics, the Republican members are much wealthier than the DFLers.

The wealthiest member of Minnesota’s delegation was Sen. Al Franken with an average net worth of $8,747,525 followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann at $1,783,508 and Rep. Chip Cravaack in 217th place with an average net worth of $1,391,551.

Those three were in the top half of Congress’ 535 members.

After Klobuchar’s $724,512 comes Rep. Erik Paulsen with an average net worth of $487,017, Rep. John Kline had $471,006, Rep. Collin Peterson had $263,005, Rep. Tim Walz with $247,502, and Rep. Betty McCollum with an average net worth of $88,005.

Rep. Keith Ellison had the lowest net worth, with negative $14,497.

The generally accepted cutoff for the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of net worth is about $9 million on 2010, a threshold that none of the Minnesota delegation report.

Eleven percent of Congress is in the top 1 percent in terms of net worth.

Source: Sen. Lee Bright's Facebook page.

Rep. Michele Bachmann announced Tuesday that her presidential campaign chairman in South Carolina, where the first shots of the Civil War were fired, is state Sen. Lee Bright, who has made comments about secession and introduced a bill to study whether the state should start printing its own currency.

“Michele Bachmann is the candidate who doesn’t just give lip service to conservative principles but actively lives them out every day,” Bright said in a statement. “She is the conservative who has been consistent in her record and her rhetoric.”

Bright introduced his bill to study the creation of a new South Carolina currency earlier this session. The resolution argues that the right to print currency can flow from the state’s constitutional police powers.

“[M]any widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future,” the resolution reads. ”[I]n the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the state is not prepared, the state’s governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos, with gravely detrimental effects upon the lives, health, and property of South Carolina’s citizens, and with consequences fatal to the preservation of good order throughout the state.”

If passed, the legislation would appoint a subcommittee to come up with a plan for an alternative currency.

“South Carolina can avoid or at least mitigate many of the economic, social, and political shocks to be expected to arise from hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System only through the timely adoption of an alternative sound currency that the state’s government and citizens may employ without delay in the event of the destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency,” according to the resolution.

It was last year that Bright played a major role in helping to pass a non-binding, but contentious, affirmation of South Carolina’s sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution.

“If at first you don’t secede, try again,” Bright joked to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal after the sovereignty bill’s passage. ”I think all of our rights are under assault, but assault on the 9th and 10th amendments is the most egregious.”

The “No Surprises” campaign promises that Bachmann won’t have any surprises in her policy positions, unlike her competitors for the Republican presidential nomination. The campaign is part of Bachmann’s attempt to position herself as the most ideological conservative in the race.

“Elections should be simple—we shouldn’t have to settle for a candidate or compromise on issues,” said Bachmann’s campaign manager Keith Nahigian in an email to supporters on Sunday. “With Michele Bachmann—we don’t have to. With Michele Bachmann, there are no surprises. This morning our campaign launched a new website, No Surprises 2012, which highlights Michele’s opponents double-talk and inconsistent stances on the issues that matter most to you and me.”

The campaign has launched a new website to go along with the video. The website seems to be targeting Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

In his email, Nahigian added, “There is no question that this election will decide the future of our great nation. We cannot afford a candidate who will flip-flop on the issues and ‘say one thing but do another.’ As the proven Tea Party leader against the Obama agenda, Michele is the true consistent conservative in this race, and the only one who will protect our constitutional conservative principles.”

Michele Bachmann’s campaign and CBS News clashed over the weekend when her campaign was accidentally included on an email chain with CBS News’ John Dickerson explaining that Bachmann would not get as much attention during and after Saturday’s presidential debate. According to CNN, Bachmann’s campaign manager Keith Nahigian walked through the spin room and called Dickerson a “piece of shit.”

Prior to Saturday night’s foreign policy debate in South Carolina hosted by CBS and National Journal, Bachmann spokesperson Alice Stewart was accidentally copied on an email about a post debate webshow hosted by CBS. The email said that Bachmann would not receive the same amount of attention that the frontrunners would due to her low polling numbers.

Here’s a screenshot of the email provided by the Bachmann campaign:

During the debate, campaign manager Keith Nahigian sent a message to Bachmann supporters on Facebook:

“While Michele has been onstage at tonight’s debate demonstrating strong leadership on foreign policy and national security, we received concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows – the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele’s questions,” he said. “[W]e need to show the liberal media elite that we won’t stand for this outrageous manipulation. Help us fight this affront by sharing this with your friends.”

Nahigian followed that up with an email message to supporters accusing the media of anti-Bachmann bias (Nahigian’s emphasis).

“[W]e will NOT stand for this pathetic attempt by the liberal media to manipulate the Republican primary process by limiting Michele’s conservative message for Republican primary voters,” he wrote. “ALL AMERICANS should be offended by this blatant attempt to manipulate the nominating process. Primaries are about voters, NOT the media elites. This is OUR primary and we will fight this blatant attempt to suppress Michele’s conservative message.”

According to CNN, during the debate, Nahigian ran through the spin room where the media and campaign staffers were gathered and said, “John Dickerson should be fired. He is a piece of shit. He is a fraud and he should be fired.”

After the debate, Bachmann told CNN, “I think it’s only respectful to allow the candidates to be able to speak and not intentionally ahead of time make a decision to limit candidates’ opportunity to speak to the American people. Clearly this was an example of media bias.”

In the annual St. Cloud State University Survey, 55 percent of Minnesotans surveyed say the state is on the wrong track, down one percent from last year.

About 22 percent of Minnesotans said unemployment and jobs were the biggest problem, with another 14 percent pointing to the economy. The survey found that most respondents thought Democrats could do a better job with the economy, while they trusted Republicans to fix the budget.

Despite their trust in Republicans to fix budgets more than 54 percent of those surveyed blamed the Republican-dominated legislature for this summer’s government shutdown, with a little more than 18 percent laying full blame at the feet of DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Event those who identified as Republicans blamed the legislature at a higher proportion, according to survey results.

About half of all respondents want to see state budget solutions that rely only on spending cuts, while a little more than a quarter of those surveyed want both.

The survey also found that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann was the most unpopular figure of the 11 surveyed, with those surveyed giving her a rating of 33 out of 100. It also found that even in her home state, Bachmann would perform much worse in a hypothetical match-up against Pres. Barack Obama than either Herman Cain or Mitt Romney. Obama won in all three hypothetical match-ups.

According to a new Gallup poll, only 9 percent (for Perry) and 3 percent (for Bachmann) of Republican voters see them as the likely candidate to receive the nomination.

Minnesota Independent reporter Andy Birkey and Texas Independent editor Patrick Michels discussed how their home-state candidate is viewed back home, how religion plays a big part in both candidates’ politics and the “outsider” personas they have cultivated on their way to the national stage.

Source: Still from an MSNBC video of the event.

During Michele Bachmann’s unveiling of her foreign policy plans in South Carolina, the presidential candidate was protested by Occupy Wall Street activists who held a “mic check” demonstration asserting that Bachmann’s rhetoric divides people.

The group of about two dozen protesters chanted in unison, “This will only take a minute… You capitalize on dividing Americans… claiming people that disagree with you… are unpatriotic socialists… and you promote discrimination.”

The Occupy movement has used the mic check to amplify a message in crowded situations.

As Republicans in the crowd shouted down the protesters, a police officer escorted Bachmann offstage for a brief moment.

Here’s video of the protest:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hours later, Bachmann’s campaign manager, Keith Nahigian, sent an email to supporters that pivoted the flap into a spiel on Veteran’s Day:

In the last hour while Michele was giving a foreign policy speech aboard the USS Yorktown in South Carolina; she was interrupted by protestors from the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. While they did all that they could to interrupt her speech, Michele returned to the stage to continue her remarks, and she praised the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees the rights of the protestors to speak.

Regardless of political creed, our nation’s military men and women defend the right of every American to enjoy the incredible liberties our Constitution provides. I hope these protestors, while aboard the USS Yorktown on the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps, and on the eve of Veteran’s Day took a moment to thank our troops who so bravely fight for our first amendment rights.

Bachmann made the comments on the Steve Deace Show in Iowa before the Nov. 9 debate in the Wolverine State. Deace had asked Bachmann about the “pro-active, positive solution that is the alternative to socialism” in Michigan.

“It’s the fruition of all of the policies of the left which really have their origin in socialism,” Bachmann said of Michigan’s struggling economy. “If there’s anything we should have learned by now it’s that socialism doesn’t work and it’s principles don’t work.”

She also attacked other GOP presidential candidates for supporting the auto bailout, calling it the latest example of socialism in the state and saying “you won’t find any surprises with me.”

“You will find in me a core conviction,” she said, providing a nod to the title of her new book. “I’ve been the only consistent conservative in this race.”

The solution to Michigan’s unemployment problem is reducing union influence by making it a right to work state, which would allow companies to cut back on wages and benefits and be more competitive, she said.

She praised Iowa, which has a law prohibiting union membership or payment of union dues as a condition of employment. About half the states in the U.S. have a similar law; Michigan does not.

“When you have a right to work state then you can have companies adjust wages so they can open up shops to more and more hires and more employees,” Bachmann said.

She said then as more companies opened up, shop wages would eventually increase as businesses work to attract the best talent, especially if taxes and regulations are slashed at the same time.

“If we can have the tax burden lower and if we can have the regulatory burden lower then employers can afford to pay more to bid up wages and bid up benefits and then everybody succeeds,” she said.

The actual wage disparities between right to work states and those that aren’t has been a hotly contested topic for decades — or at least since most of the nation’s 22 right to work states passed their laws in the 1940s and 1950s following the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which was enacted as a response to (and amended) the Wagner Act of 1935. The latter lays out the rights of workers to unionize, while the former addressed what was then described as too much power by the unions.

Right to work essentially allows all workers at a business where a union has organized to be represented by the union, bound by the union-negotiated contract and use the union as a bargaining agent without ever having to pay union due or join the union.

In 2001 by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute found that “the most important aspect of right-to-work law is its effect on wages.”

… On average, men in RTW states earn 7.8 percent less than their counterparts in non-RTW states; women in RTW states earn 6.8 percent less. … [W]e find that, even after controlling for regional costs of living, workers in right-to-work states earn less per hour. Particularly interesting is the affect on workers living in cities that are stretch across state line, placing it in both a right-to-work state and a non-RTW state. Seventeen out of 433 metropolitan areas in our sample (nearly 4 percent) spill over from a right-to-work state to a non-RTW state. Our analysis indicates that, in areas where a pure RTW state effect exists (i.e., no spill-over effect), the right-to-work penalty is larger. In fact, we find that living near a non-RTW state helps raise workers’ wages. …

But instead of focusing on individual wages, those that support right-to-work laws often point to a state’s overall economic situation — a similar argument to the one Bachmann made. For instance, the conservative Public Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College (now known as the Public Interest Institute), in a 2000 paper defending Iowa’s right-to-work law, noted a 1998 study that “Iowa outperformed most of its neighboring closed-shop states.”

… Four closed shop states border Iowa: Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. From 1947-1992, Iowa’s rate of manufacturing growth was equal to that of Missouri, slightly ahead of Wisconsin, 1.5 times higher than Minnesota, and over 5.5 times higher than Illinois. This is strong evidence that Iowa has done much better economically since enacting its right-to-work law. …

Thus far, only Cain and Perry have revealed the most detailed plans, and because women are disproportionately likely to be single parents and to have lower wages, smaller pensions and more medical problems, they are expected to fare worse under these plans than their male counterparts.

The gender-wage gap and its relevancy to tax-policy discussions

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (PDF), in 2010, women who were full-time wage and salary workers earned 81 percent of what men earned (median weekly earnings for women were $669, and $824 for men). The female-to-male earnings ratio has hovered around 80 to 81 percent since 2004, up from 62 percent in 1979.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (PDF) showing women make up 49 percent of the total workforce but represent 59 percent of low-wage workers–this despite the fact that more women than men finish high school and earn bachelor’s degrees. And according to a new report (PDF) by the Martin Prosperity Institute, women hold 52.3 percent of “creative class” jobs–engineers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers–but in these jobs, earn an average of $48,007, while men earn an average of $82,009. Controlling for hours worked and education, creative class men out-earn creative class women by 49.2 percent.

According to the 2008-2010 American Community Survey, about 29.2 percent of families whose income in the past 12 months was below the federal poverty level were families headed by single women. It gets worse depending on the presence of young children: 38.1 percent of women-run households with children under 18 were below poverty; 46.1 percent of households with children under 5 were below poverty. In comparison, only 10.5 percent of all American families—and only 5.1 percent of married-couple families—in this survey were making below the poverty level. The aforementioned GAO report found single women with children had an average household income of about $27,000.

Income disparities do not stop at wages, however. Women tend to live longer, they are more likely to outlive their savings and less likely to have significant retirement plans or to have the type of jobs that incur significant pensions. Thus, they disproportionately benefit from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), women represent about 57 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and about 69 percent of beneficiaries over 85. In 2008, women 65 and older received an average of $11,377, compared with $14,822 for men.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (PDF), about 56 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are women, and women are more likely than men to report having three or more chronic conditions.

How do women fare under ‘9-9-9’?

THE PLAN: ‘9-9-9’

With the nation’s attention focused on Cain’s old sexual harassment charges, scrutiny of Cain’s infamous “9-9-9″ Plan is stalled for the moment. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Cain’s plan would make those earning under $50,000 pay a few thousand dollars more in taxes, while those making between half a million and $1 million would pay nearly $100,000 less in taxes. According to an analysis by the left-leaningCitizens for Tax Justice (PDF), if Cain’s plan were to go into effect today, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers would pay $210,000 less in annual taxes, while the poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would pay $2,000 more in annual taxes.

At the same time, Cain’s proposed plan is expected to raise about the same–or potentially less–revenue as the current tax system. Still, a recent poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers conducted last month shows the average American making under $50,000 annually doesn’t understand the plan and believes he or she would fare better under “9-9-9.”

Cain’s plan is actually a complicated three-step process. Replacing the current tax code with a 9-percent business flat tax (or value-added tax), a 9-percent individual flat tax and a 9-percent national sales tax is only the second step in the process. And as the Tax Policy Center summarizes, combined, the three taxes are equivalent to a 25.4-percent national sales tax, with adjustments for dividends paid to tax-exempt entities and charitable contributions.

The first step in Cain’s plan, explained by The Washington Post, would actually be to cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top-25-percent rate, down from the current high of 35 percent. The third step would be to replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax.

Cain claims under “9-9-9,” Americans who fall under the federal government’s poverty level would be exempt from paying the individual income tax; however, he would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), designed to help the working poor, and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Additionally, he would eliminate payroll tax deductions for employers (except in unspecified “Opportunity Zones”), which currently serve as a hiring incentive. Helping out the wealthy, Cain would get rid of the estate tax and capital gains taxes. His plan, according to Edward D. Kleinbard of the Gould University of Southern California School of Law, involves a “disguised one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.”

More from TaxVox, the Tax Policy Center blog:

A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. … In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

Cain’s plan would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is a refundable credit designed to offset federal payroll and income taxes for low- and moderate-income working people.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this year, working families with children with annual incomes below $36,000 to $49,000 (depending on marital status and dependents) may be eligible for the EITC. Single individuals without children who make less than $13,600 annually and married couples making less than $18,700 annually would qualify for a small EITC. In 2009, the average EITC was $2,770 for a household with children and $259 for a childless household. According to CBPP, families mostly use this tax credit to pay for necessities, home and vehicle repairs and, sometimes, additional education.

Cain would also kill the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which helps working families pay for child care costs.

According to the Urban Institute, high-working, low-income families spend $3,135 annually, or 12 percent of their income. The Institute estimates that 69 percent of children under 5 with low-income working mothers are cared for regularly by someone other than a parent, and 39 percent of these children are in child care for at least 35 hours per week.

“It would be horrifying to lose [the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit],” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). “That would particularly affect women.

“We have a basically progressive tax code,” she told TAI. “If we go to a flat code, it would significantly hurt low-income workers.”

Joan Entmacher, vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, where she works at promoting policies aimed at improving the economic security of low-income women and their families, told TAI that Cain’s tax proposal appears to affect women worse than the other candidates because his plan is “much harder on lower-income Americans” in the way it would raise taxes on low- and middle-income earners.

Under Cain’s plan, millionaires would get a 17.9-percent tax rate, or a 22-percent boost after taxes. But a single mother earning between $20,000 and $30,000? Her tax rate would be 24.9 percent. In other words, a single mom making $25,000 a year will have to give 25 percent of her income, or $6,250, to taxes.

Cain has proposed creating tax benefits to certain geographic areas in what he calls “Opportunity Zones” (PDF), but he has not been specific about where these zones would be or how they would work.

“Overall, you’re going to be better off if you’re making over $1 million in income, better than single mom trying to raise kids on $25,000 per year,” Entmacher said.

Terry O’Neill, an attorney and professor who is the president of the National Organization for Women(NOW), told TAI that Cain is turning his back on women, many whom depend on the tax programs he wants to eliminate.

“When Mr. Cain wants to take away the Earned Income Tax Credit, he is punishing women who sometimes work two jobs full-time, minimum-wage jobs, just to pay for food and rent,” O’Neill said.

Perry’s postcard proposal cuts more than it balances

During his speech at the Corner Stone Action Dinner in Manchester, N.H., on Oct. 28, Perry repeatedly waved a blank postcard in explaining his tax and economic-policy plan. Like Cain’s plan, Perry’s plan (PDF) is more complicated than he lets on in speeches. Where they differ is in Perry’s explicit details in how Americans would pay for the substantial tax breaks on the highest earners — by eliminating deductions and cutting specific entitlement programs that especially benefit lower-income earners, and women.

THE PLAN: ‘Cut, Balance & Grow’

Taxpayers would be able to choose whether to file their taxes under the current tax code or under a new 20-percent “flat tax.” What Perry has not emphasized is that taxpayers will have to spend time—and potentially money—calculating which plan benefits them more.

Like Cain, Perry has countered claims his plan will result in disproportionately higher taxes for lower and middle-income families. As an example, Perry points to the provision in his 20-percent flat-tax plan, where families will be eligible for “generous” exemptions of $12,500.

In his proposal, Perry takes a dig at Cain’s proposal to introduce a federal sales tax and a business value-added tax, which he calls “highly regressive,” and uses the working poor to make his case:

When added to existing federal income taxes and state and local income sales taxes, a national sales tax would be highly regressive. Low-income families spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on food and gas than do those with considerable wealth. For example, a household earning $25,000 each year would spend roughly 40% of its income on food, utilities, and health care, while a household earning $130,000 each year would pay less than 15% of its income on those three items.

But because Perry would eliminate the EITC, lower- and middle-income earners would still pay more under his plan than they do now. Using calculations made by the Tax Policy Center, The New York Times estimates single parents with two children making $9,700 annually would pay no income taxes under Perry’s plan but would not receive the $4,885 tax credit they receive under current tax law.

Perry, like Cain, would eliminate the capital gains tax.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

To pay for the plan, Perry has suggested cuts in education and nutritional programs for poor children. He has offered various suggestions for reforming Medicare, which include gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility, alongside a gradual retirement-age increase under Social Security; paying Medicare benefits on a sliding scale based on income; or by creating bundled premium support payments that would go directly to the individual. He has also proposed block-granting Medicaid payments.

Entmacher told TAI that under Perry’s plan, taxes would go up for the working poor and what she calls the “true middle class” — households making no more than $75,000 per year.

“The Perry plan is particularly hard on single heads of households,” Entmacher said. “They do worse than the working poor.”

The others

As for the remaining GOP candidates in the pack, the one expected to win the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has a vague plan. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have stated support for a flat tax, and all the candidates support eliminating the estate tax.

Romney’s main tax proposal is to end taxes on interest and dividend income for people who earn less than $200,000 a year, but otherwise keep the existing tax system in place. Romney does not support a flat tax or a national sales tax, stating they would largely hurt the middle class. He supports extending most, if not all, of the Bush-era tax cuts.

All of the experts TAI spoke with agreed the tax code needs reforming. With GOP candidates vying for shorter rules in the name of simplicity, Lower-Basch thinks what the tax code actually needs is more tiers and brackets to be more fair, reasoning that households making $250,000 a year should not be taxed the same as those making $1 or $2 million a year.

For the past eight months, a group of volunteer Iowa activists have been contributing to these Power Rankings and attempting to answer what GOP candidate is positioned to capture caucus gold if the event was tonight.

The panelists have watched as candidates entered the race, surged to the top and then were found to be lacking the necessities that lead to a caucus win: consistent messaging, grassroots organization and activist energy and loyalty.

Since only 57 days remain before Iowans gather at their caucus sites and recent polling has shown nearly 75 percent of all likely caucus-goers to have only soft support for a specific candidate, the snapshots being provided become even more important. On caucus night, it comes down to momentum and organization — who has it, who has honed it and who is ready to exploit it.

And with that, here’s how our panelists think the Iowa Caucuses would end if they were held tonight.

1. Ron Paul — The Texas congressman remains at the top of our rankings for the second week because our panelists generally see him as the GOP candidate who currently has both an energized base and grassroots organization.

   “Once again, baggage is creeping up on everyone else, but Paul is traveling lightly. When there’s so much negative coverage floating around, voters are going to turn to a guy like Paul who is seen as genuine, even among people who don’t agree with him on all the issues,” said one panelist.

   Another added, “I don’t think polls accurately show his support, especially with young people, and he’s been advertising quite a bit. Plus I think he draws a different base of support than the anti-Romney, evangelical crowd.”

   Although nearly all of our panelists placed Paul in their top three finishers, it remains clear that the scope of the Power Rankings — the fact that we try to determine how the caucuses would end if they were held tonight, and not necessarily gauging placement on the actual caucus date of Jan. 3, 2012 — benefits Paul the most.

   “He remains the candidate in the race with the best combination of an excited base and quality organization, which is the best in the state. I personally saw his organization pull in over 500 people on a Saturday morning to a National Federation of Republican Assemblies event, and he was the only candidate with any real support there. However, the January 3rd Caucus date does not work in his favor.”

   Given the excitement Paul has generated at Iowa appearances and given his campaign’s outreach through both paid advertisements and constituent groups, there is no denying that he would have a very strong showing if the caucuses were held tonight. He also benefits from a fractured Iowa GOP, which hasn’t yet launched a solid rally around a specific candidate. But if that happens in advance of Jan. 3, it remains unlikely that Paul could survive the onslaught.

   “I’m not disparaging Paul’s youthful base when I say that historically those young people have not been reliable caucusgoers. Yes, Paul can draw a large crowd at the University of Iowa during homecoming and relatively good weather. But what happens to Paul’s turnout on a likely very miserable Monday night in January when students remain on holiday?”

   “If the caucuses were held today, the various student groups on the college campuses would likely be able to do a good job of turning out their supporters. Given the general lack of enthusiasm shown for the rest of the field, his current level of support might push Paul’s tally up. Unfortunately, when the caucuses are held on January 3 school won’t be in session and it will be harder to achieve the turnout he needs for a top three finish.”

2. Herman Cain — The former chief executive for Godfather’s Pizza continues to surge ahead in Iowa, and our panelists came very close to providing him a high slot in our rankings. But, while giving a nod to Cain’s momentum, there’s also very little evidence of a strong ground game in the Hawkeye State.

   In addition, while the rest of the nation continues to buzz about allegations of former sexual harassment by Cain, Iowans aren’t. This isn’t to say that they are necessarily ignoring the story line, but more that they are taking a wait-and-see approach to how it all plays out. And, some Iowans also view the controversy as a silver lining for Cain, who has received much more national attention due to this story than he’s received in months prior.

   “The sexual-harassment allegations against Cain aren’t likely to do him in — true believers in ‘non-politicians’ will follow people like him anywhere. But the Republicans sense they have a chance to beat Obama a year from now, and they’re not likely to squander it on candidates with baggage who will make independent voters recoil.”

   “The sexual harassment allegations are a double-edge sword for Cain: It’s baggage that’s going to turn off a lot of family voters but it’s also given him more national exposure than he’s seen. That he’s on the networks each day and on cable most hours of the day means his recognition is exploding.”

   “I think it’s too early to judge the impact of the harassment allegations … I think he will be hurt long-term simply because of his campaign’s inability to effectively land on a strategy to respond to the allegations. In fact, insiders continue to tell me that Cain’s campaign is completely disorganized and has no cohesive strategy.”

   Iowans have previously proven they aren’t willing to simply accept whatever candidate happens to hold national popularity, and that they are willing to ignore national distractions for a candidate that has a strong presence on the ground in the state. But the fact remains that Cain isn’t providing Iowans much of a reason to give him a second chance.

   Cain hasn’t been a frequent fixture in the state, and he only recently began pushing for more grassroots organization and strategy in the Hawkeye State. What happens over the next 2 weeks will be critical in determining if Cain continues to rise, or takes another dip courtesy of the 2012 roller coaster.

   “If the caucuses were held today I think the intensity of Cain’s supporters would help him carry the day. My best guess, however, is that the rally effect will fade, but other questions about his positions and general readiness for high political office will remain and his support in the polls will fade.”

3. Mitt Romney — It’s been said here before and it’s worth saying again: Romney has strong hold-over support in Iowa from 2008. And although much is made of the fact that most members of the Iowa GOP are predominantly selecting candidates based on social conservative stances, there are still many Republicans who are looking more closely at perceived electability than at conservative purity.

   That being said, Iowa continues to hold a risk for Romney, who continues to poll in the low-to-mid 20s. If he takes the extra step and tries to build on his current core, he runs the risk of raising expectations in the Hawkeye State — an situation he has already experienced and is unlikely to want to repeat. If he continues to ignore Iowa, he leave the door open for caucusgoers to solidify around one of his opponents and select a candidate that could also perform well among similar-minded voters in South Carolina.

   “Given that the not-Romney vote is still split among several candidates, it provides an opening for Romney to come in and win the caucuses. … On the other hand, if Romney doesn’t compete in Iowa any more than he has, then the candidate who wins here might get enough of a boost to mount a significant challenge to Romney in South Carolina (if not in New Hampshire). A candidate who wins in Iowa and South Carolina would have significant momentum going into Florida. Basically, Romney needs to find a way to compete in Iowa to hold off his competitors without raising expectations for himself.”

   “Whatever he says, he’s playing in Iowa, which is smart — a second place here and a win in NH could really lock things up for him early. It’s worth the risk even if he finishes third, because Paul is not a national contender.”

   “I’ve come to believe that the Iowa Caucus campaign is a war of attrition. Numerous alternatives have enjoyed their moment in the sun as the ‘not-Romney’ candidate, and have withered under the increased exposure. Romney, despite not investing a lot of time or money in Iowa, continues to look like the candidate that can win the general election.”

4. Rick Santorum — The former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania finally seems to have established a bit of traction among our panelists.

   Santorum, more than any other 2012 candidate, is betting on an Iowa victory. He’s visited all 99 counties in the state, and has positioned himself well as a social conservative dark horse. His messaging has been consistent — first telling Iowans he planned to “out-conservative all other conservatives, and then, most recently, rolling out a faith/policy platform. Where Santorum hasn’t made strides is in the realm of electability.

   “He’s a second choice, but unless my first choice implodes between now and Jan. 3, it isn’t going to matter,” a panelist said. “Republicans don’t caucus the same way Democrats do and second-choices often get left on the floor or without a vote.”

   “Every time he’s on the brink of a breakthrough someone else steals his thunder. Prior to the Straw Poll it was Michele Bachmann. Now it’s Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich overshadowing him. However, he’s definitely a candidate a lot of former Mike Huckabee supporters are considering, so he will be a factor.”

   “Though Santorum hasn’t gotten the spotlight after touring all 99 counties, he’s probably well positioned by having spent time here and made allies in communities.”

   There is also one more worry for the Santorum campaign: money.

   “Along with Gingrich, Santorum may be one to benefit if Cain fades in the polls. He’s put in a lot of time in Iowa, and managed to visit all of Iowa’s 99 counties, but that effort still isn’t registering in the polls. He may be the “under the radar” candidate of this cycle, but even to the extent people may begin to take a second look at him, he doesn’t have the organization in place to take advantage of a late surge.”

5. Newt Gingrich — The former U.S. House Speaker continues to impress in Iowa, and appears to be positioning himself as a viable alternative to those currently sitting with Romney, but not yet 100 percent comfortable at that table.

   “He could be on the brink of a surge here down the stretch, and the way he is running his campaign by being substantive on issues and taking the high road allows him to appeal to Branstad and Vander Plaats types alike. If he can stay disciplined the rest of the way, and with Gingrich that is always a big if, he will be formidable.”

   “Gingrich has done consistently well in the debates. Rather than throwing elbows at the other candidates he’s kept his focus on policies and Obama. Although he can come off as too wonkish at times, most agree that he seems the one most likely to be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama in the general election debates. Gingrich had a terrible campaign rollout, and has had little or no ground game in Iowa, but that may be changing. Results of the latest Iowa Poll suggest that he may be one of two candidates who would gain the most if Cain’s support fades. Press reports suggest that Gingrich is planning to open as many as five offices in Iowa. Gingrich turned in a strong performance at the Reagan Dinner and now may be his opportunity to capitalize on those who are still searching for the not-Romney candidate who can beat Obama.”

   “Many people are now giving Newt another serious look. Sometimes you have to let the smartest guy in the room solve the problem as painful as it is to do so.”

   “Gingrich seems positioned to do well if Cain does fall out of the lead.”

   “In my war of attrition scenerio, it’s now time for Newt to get a new look. He had his major troubles early, so it gave him time to recover and present himself to voters as the alternative to the other candidates who have not handled ‘front-runner’ status very well.”

   “Anyone who has grown tired of the bickering between the candidates is going land on Gingrich or Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is seen as too soft so Gingrich benefits.”

Two former Iowa front-runners, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, didn’t garner enough support from the panel for entry into our top five finishers, but the news isn’t all bad for Perry.

“Perry seems to have stopped his downward spiral in the polls.”

Inasmuch as Perry’s debate performances were lackluster, his retail politics shine. Perry also has the luxury of good fundraising, which has allowed him to purchase time on Iowa airwaves.

“The saying goes that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, but Perry has the resources to allow caucus-goers to take a second look at him.”

The panelists are having a much more difficult time evaluating a Bachmann campaign that seems to have all the right pieces for Iowa, but continues to flounder.

“Bachmann was known prior to this presidential race as a real stand-out for the GOP and the tea party. And while she continues to find support in both groups, and especially with social conservatives, she hasn’t lived up to expectations when it comes to raising funds or small group politicking.”

While recent reports of Bachmann’s New Hampshire staff quitting weren’t high on the radar of Iowans, they did pay attention the response of the campaign. At first, the campaign didn’t acknowledge or didn’t know what had taken place.

“It was a bad moment for Bachmann because it showed the vast disconnect between her grassroots and national strategies. In other words, it fed into the perception that she is one thing here and another thing there, or saying one thing here and another thing there. It brought up the reliability question and Bachmann didn’t answer.”

“She’s working harder in Iowa, but my folks in the field continue to tell me that she sweeps in and quickly out of events without doing much glad-handing or giving voters any personal time. This is a major tactical error on the part of her campaign, because she wins votes when she’s given face time with the voters. Her campaign is not the first to completely misunderstand how to win the Iowa caucuses — Hillary, anyone?”