Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has recently been heralded by conservative pundits who regret his early departure from the GOP presidential race, told MSNBC Thursday that he won’t accept a vice presidential position.

Pawlenty dropped his bid for the GOP presidential nomination following a third-place finish in the August Iowa Straw Polls. An endorsement of Mitt Romney’s campaign led to speculation that he was gunning for the vice presidential spot.

MSNBC host host Lawrence O’Donnell proposed that Pawlenty is Romney’s best prospect for a vice presidential candidate.

“I’ve already said publicly and repeatedly, that’s not something I’m going to consider,” Pawlenty said. ”He’s going to have a lot of great people to pick from as a vice presidential candidates, I’m sure he’ll make a great pick, it will be a great balanced ticket, but that’s not something I’m going to consider.”

Pawlenty said the “bench strength of the Republican Party and conservative movement is incredible,” citing vice presidential prospects for politicians like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain’s running mate over Pawlenty in the 2008 race.

Video: Pawlenty discusses his decision not to pursue or accept a vice presidential offer around the 11:00 mark.

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

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.

Rep. Michele Bachmann at a rally last year. Photo: Patrick Caldwell

At a speech Monday hosted by the Family Research Council—a conservative Christian organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as a hate group—U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann said she would defeat socialism, described leading Republican candidates for the White House as “frugal socialists” and accused Pres. Barack Obama of working to “usurp” the U.S. Constitution.

She said “Washington D.C. will never look the same again after my administration.”

Would pursue federal amendment banning same-sex marriage
Bachmann repeatedly attacked Pres. Barack Obama saying he does not follow the U.S. Constitution.

“President Obama appears intent on ignoring our constitution by abusing his executive power when he chooses which laws he will uphold and which ones he will not,” she said. “We saw him say he will not uphold the law of the land, which is the Defense of Marriage Act.”

DOMA, passed in 1996, holds that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, even those performed in states where it is legal.

She said she would have the American public vote to ban marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“I will work to protect American families from activist judges who are trying to dismantle marriage as a legal institution solely between one man and one woman. Some Republican candidates seem confused by this issue. I am not. It is at the core of my conviction.”

She added, “I want to and I will work for a federal marriage amendment so the courts cannot impose their will on this country. Only a federal marriage amendment can prevent the courts of one state from imposing same-sex marriage on us all.”

During the question period, Bachmann was asked to compare her stance on legal rights for same-sex couples compared to Mitt Romney, who has said he supports some rights for couples such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Bachmann dodged the question: ”Again, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t believe in marriages with multiple genders and even multiple partners.”

On abortion, she went after her opponents. “Some Republicans seem to be confused about what it means to be pro-life. I believe it is the role of government to protect life from conception to natural death. I’ll never be confused about that issue and you won’t find you tube clips with me advocating otherwise. For starters, Planned Parenthood will be zeroed out if I am president.”

Bachmann says GOP candidates are ‘frugal socialists’
“President Obama believes in cultivating power unto himself and centralizing power unto himself, he’s been willing to engage in a massive redistribution of wealth and in the politics of an Occupy Wall Street envy to achieve his purposes.”

She said Obama’s stances should be contrasted “with the 10th commandment, which teaches that we should not covet what belongs to our neighbor.”

“I will work to eradicate socialism across the United States government. So many Republicans aspire to be frugal socialists. We can’t restore liberty if the choice a year from now is between a socialist and a frugal socialist,” alluding to Mitt Romney’s status as the GOP presidential front runner.

Urges defeat of child welfare treaty
She said she was also concerned that Obama will push to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty on child welfare that has been signed by all 196 members of the United Nations except for the United States and Somalia. It’s the most widely supported treaty in the world.

The United States hasn’t actually committed to the treaty. The Senate would have to ratify the treaty as it does all treaties.

The treaty is generally opposed by conservative Christian home-schooling groups and religious right leaders on the grounds that it may curtail parental rights, though things like homeschooling aren’t thought to be impacted by the treaty.

“This treaty would threaten the most basic unit of government, that many of you have come here to defend and that’s the family,” she said. “As president, I will withdraw the signature of the United States from this treaty.”

Bachmann believes in ‘liberty for lightbulbs’
On light bulbs, Bachmann said, “I championed the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, I believe in liberty for light bulbs.”

Bachmann’s new book, Core of Conviction, will go on sale later this month. At least eight times during the press event, she mentioned the title of her book, “Core of Conviction,” without ever mentioning she had a forthcoming book.

The three — along with Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and U.S. Rep. Ron — spoke to about 1,000 people at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s 11th annual fall banquet in Des Moines. Tickets were $55.

Santorum perhaps outdid everyone, recounting the story of his political battle for a “partial-birth abortion” ban in the U.S. Senate and his family’s personal battle to save their unborn child when doctors recommended an abortion.

“You’ve heard a lot of policy up here from a lot of people and the choice for you is whether the folks delivering this are authentic,” he said. “Can they be trusted? Are they people that stood up when they had the opportunity and did what was called to be done?”

Santorum also said candidates should be willing to fight at the state level to stop same-sex marriage, as he did in Iowa.

“You’ll hear most everybody say they support traditional marriage and they support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,” he said. “But you’ll also hear if you listen to debates, people say that while they may support a Constitutional amendment they don’t support getting involved in the states and making sure states don’t pass either through legislation or judicial fiat marriage different than one man, one woman. And that is all the difference.”

Perry also pushed hard for support from the evangelical electorate at the event, saying in order for America to maintain its moral authority abroad it must set a high moral standard at home.

“That starts with protecting our most innocent and vulnerable, unborn children,” he said. “Fifty million have died because America has not guaranteed the right to life expressly stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Perry said he’s “taken an unwavering stand in defense of life,” and railed off a number of accomplishments in Texas: requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion; passing a prenatal protection act and informed consent law; requiring a sonogram before abortion; and defunding Planned Parenthood.

Perry also said his stance against abortion is “not a matter of campaign convenience, it is a core conviction,” and called for activist citizens to rally against activist judges.

“It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life but government should stay out of that decision,” he said. “If that is your view you are not pro-life, you are pro-having your cake and eating it too.”

And Bachmann said she’s “watched the destruction that has come on our nation” since Obama took office and it’s time for a very different president.

“This is the year when social conservatives can have it all, because in my experience a social conservative is a fiscal conservative,” she said. “A social conservative is a national security conservative. We can have it all this year.”

Bachmann also attacked Obama for not taking a stronger stand against abortion, and promised she would support a Constitutional amendment to protect life from conception.

“He said that he personally does not believe in abortion,” Bachmann said. “But he also believes the government should not intervene when it comes to the issue of abortion.”

Cain, Gingrich and Paul took strong stands against abortion and same-sex marriage as well, but their rhetoric was not as fiery.

He also promised to turn down any legislation that allowed for government funding of abortions, and said he’d work to strengthen laws that prevent abortion, get rid of activist judges and bureaucrats and defund Planned Parenthood.

On same-sex marriage, he said a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing traditional marriage is necessary.

Gingrich said he would defund Planned Parenthood and devote those funds to adoption services. He also promised to sign an executive order ensuring that no doctor or nurse can be compelled to perform any activity against their will, and railed against activist judges.

“Most of our major crises in our culture are driven by radical judges who violate the American Constitution, violate American history and do things that are fundamentally destructive,” he said.

Paul said “the family is in serious trouble” but claimed changing laws won’t mean fewer divorces or children born out of wedlock. He said morality “has to come from our heart,” and instead hit on his familiar small-government theme.

“If a government gets too big the family is undermined,” Paul said. “If we resort to the government taking over family responsibilities, whether it’s education, medical care, whatever, then the family is diminished.”

But Paul also noted he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, and said as a doctor he understands life.

“I know when life begins, I know when I assume responsibility for two people because if I do harm to the fetus I can be sued,” Paul said. “So there’s no doubt about the morality or the legality of it.”

A major disconnect is underway that makes it difficult to know exactly how the caucuses would play out if they were held tonight. That is, the candidates who are surging in polling are those who aren’t spending time in Iowa, a state that values its grassroots, retail politics.

So while the field itself became clearer with the final announcements by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin that they would not seek the nomination, the path out of the caucuses has become more muddy. Social conservatives are rumored to make up 60 percent of GOP caucus-goers in Iowa, and we’ve yet to see them coalesce around a single candidate. Republicans who focus more on fiscal issues also have yet to find a home within the current field.

The situation, according to our group of assembled panelists, has opened a door for individuals previously expected to do “just enough” in the Iowa caucuses due to assembled core support to grab the golden ring of victory.

Here’s how our panel, comprised of grassroots activists, state political reporters, consultants, academics and strategists, believe the caucuses would play out if they were held tonight:

1. Ron Paul — The Texas congressman surges to the top of our rankings for the first time, but not without caution.

   “If the caucuses were held today, [Paul] would win because he’s the only candidate with an excited base and an excellent organization,” a panelist noted.

   “However, the caucuses being held January 3 could hurt him because a lot of his young voters will still be on Christmas break.”

   The panelists have given props to the Paul organization for some time, and there is no denying that the Texan has a core group of supporters that are incredibly loyal and excited. The question, at least for our panelists, has always been if there were enough supporters to compete against a candidate that drew large swaths of social conservatives (i.e., Huckabee in 2008).

   But, in this 15th edition of our rankings, our panelists now see a social conservative base so fractured in the Hawkeye State as to allow Paul’s seemingly limited base — that is, a base that doesn’t appear to be drawing vast numbers of new supporters — to exit Iowa with a victory.

   “Paul has been back in the state, and he is drawing good crowds. But, from what I’ve seen, these are the same people who have been showing up at Paul’s events for ages. There’s not much new blood here, which made a difference in 2008, but may not really matter in 2012.”

   Paul was given an opportunity to shine in the last presidential debate in New Hampshire due to its focus on the economy. The format also, as one of the panelists noted, didn’t lend itself to Paul’s past problems where his differences with others in the field were a focus.

   “He’s also started airing TV ads. The two I’ve seen focus mostly on core Republican issues as one is pro-life and the other concerns national security. These should help him with the Republican base and he might pick up some supporters who are ambivalent about the other candidates. Then again, I don’t think he’ll pick up many. Those who don’t want to go with Romney will be looking mostly at other choices. Like Romney, Paul has been through this before and is a known quantity for most likely caucusgoers. As such, it’s unlikely that we would see any surge for him.”

2. Mitt Romney — Speaking of the former Massachusetts governor, he and Paul are separated in this edition by less than two percent. Our panelists believe that Romney’s long-standing core support in Iowa, combined with the inability thus far of the “anti-Romney contingent” to find a suitable home with a specific candidate would allow him to exit Iowa in very good shape if the caucuses were held tonight.

   “The biggest problem Romney has had in Iowa is the group of social conservatives that find him uniquely undesirable,” wrote a panelist. “Whether that is because of his religion or for other reasons, it doesn’t really matter because these are individuals who won’t simply not support him, but individuals who will actively pursue a strategy to prevent him from exiting Iowa with a victory. In the past that has meant some supporting a candidate they otherwise would not, just because they see an opportunity to elevate someone ahead of Romney.

   “I think we saw that in 2008 with the Arkansas governor. Yes, Huckabee had good support, but there were some who viewed his candidacy as the anti-Romney campaign, even when they knew Huckabee was not likely to go the distance.”

   And that last point of electability might be the one place where Romney bests Paul and other members of the GOP field.

   “His support has been steady. He has had good debate performances and is generally well versed on the issues. He isn’t great at retail politics, but isn’t horrible either. People know his weaknesses and may be willing to look past them if they believe he has the best chance to beat Obama, which is the key factor for most Republicans. To the extent that the ‘not Romney’ candidates continue to split the support of both social conservatives and tea partiers, Romney could be the caucus winner.”

   Another panelists put it even more bluntly, “Regardless of how hard Romney is working Iowa, he still looks like the candidate most likely to defeat the President due to his message discipline.”

3. Herman Cain — The Atlanta businessman is seeing a national surge, which didn’t go unnoticed by our panelists. But it is also difficult to see a path to a Cain victory in Iowa due to lack of organization.

   “Each of the candidates have come to Iowa, stood up and presented themselves as ‘not Romney,’ but that can only take you so far — as they’ve all hopefully realized by now. Cain was one of many and found to be lacking shortly after coming on the scene. Iowans are willing to take another look, but there had better be some substance there this time around or it will be a very short look.”

   Cain has another big problem in the Hawkeye State: visibility. He hasn’t returned to Iowa since the Straw Poll, which makes is rather difficult for grassroots activists to kick the tires. He does, however, plan to return to the state this weekend and those stops will likely provide a clearer picture of his caucus hopes.

   “I do love to hear Cain speak. I like his passion and the energy he leaves behind in the room. But if he isn’t going to be in Iowa building that energy, building an organization that will push people to their caucus site, he isn’t going to do well in Iowa. He has got to be on the ground, and he’s got to be serious. We’ve already got the ‘teleprompter president’ and Iowans don’t want another person who can speak well but accomplish nothing. He’s got to show us more than a good speech.”

   Another panelists agrees. “Cain could argue that he’s managed to increase his popularity in Iowa despite not having been here in over two months. That’s true, but there’s a big difference between telling a pollster that you like Cain and whether you would go out to caucus for him on a January evening. Like Bachmann and Perry before him, Cain is — and I hate to use this phrase, but I suppose it fits — the flavor of the month. In other words, the candidate that many are looking to at the moment to fill the not-Romney slot. … Right now, there are probably enough supporters who would turn out for Cain that he would finish in the top five, but I think he has a lot of work to do to seal the deal, and it doesn’t seem that he’s planning on doing it.”

4. Rick Perry — The honeymoon has officially come to an end for the Texas governor.

   There is one aspect of Perry’s candidacy in which our panelists all agree: horrible, horrible, horrible debate performances. While national debates typically aren’t enough to toss someone out of the running, especially in retail-heavy Iowa, they do make an impression.

   “Perry remains on a downward slide, with no end in sight until he finds a game-changer.”

   Perry has been back in Iowa and has emphasized his successes in meeting one-on-one. He has reached out to Iowa supporters and potential supporters in the wake of his dismal debate performances. But it might be too little, too late.

   “There was a rocky start for Perry in Iowa to begin with because of the way his announcement seemed to step on the Ames Straw Poll. It was good that he came into the state right after that announcement and began retail politics here — something he seems to be pretty good at doing. But no matter how much I like him as a person, no matter how much I think he might be a good leader, all I have to do is imagine him on a national stage with Obama and I cringe. We can’t afford another four years of Obama, and the general election isn’t a retail contest.”

5. Rick Santorum — After many months of beating the Iowa bushes, it appears that the former senator from Pennsylvania is finally beginning to gain traction in Iowa.

   “Santorum continues to put in the most effort in Iowa. He raised less than a million dollars for the third quarter, but he is keeping his spending low. Santorum may very well be the ‘under-the-radar’ candidate of this caucus season. Because of his lack of finances he’s been relying on grassroots campaigning. Moreover, he’s bee going to many of the smaller counties that other candidates have not. At last count Santorum has been to nearly 70 of Iowa’s 99 counties. That effort may not be showing up in the polls, but it might do well for him on caucus night.”

   “We know that some Iowans have been sampling the candidates and hopping around quite frequently. First they were with Huckabee, then moved to Bachmann and then to Perry. As each of those campaigns have fallen off — at least Huckabee was by his own design — those tepid supporters are looking for a home. Some have gravitated to Cain, but others are moving toward Santorum. All Santorum needs to do is keep them, and not make any big mistakes. His base will grow.”

   It’s difficult for our panelists to predict if a compressed caucus season helps or hinders Santorum, who is mostly considered a “slow burn” candidate. Obviously, he doesn’t have the support to win the caucuses if they were held tonight, but the vast majority of our panelists view him as someone who’s going to stick around and gather up the stragglers left behind when when the aforementioned ‘flavor of the month’ isn’t quite as tasty.

   “Each day that Bachmann fails to go on offense, and Perry continues to implode, increases the chances he will be the surprise of these caucuses.”

For the first time in weeks, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann failed to garner enough support to be listed in our top five. She came in sixth for this edition, only a hair behind Santorum.

Bachmann appears to also be suffering from the syndrome of electability and, interestingly enough, her messaging in Iowa for caucus-goers not to “settle” seems to be somewhat backfiring.

“When [Bachmann] told us to support our values, I understood what she was saying. She wants us to support what we believe in our hearts, to vote and caucus based on our principles. But we already tried that with Huckabee and that got us McCain and we lost the White House. So if the choice is between supporting someone who is 100 percent in alignment with my values or someone who is 70 percent there, but the lesser candidate has a better chance of winning the White House, why wouldn’t I support that other candidate? When everything is said and done, I have to think that 70 percent is better than nothing.”

The panelists agree that Bachmann has a good ground organization in Iowa, but also that she has faltered in overall messaging and by making some big mistakes on the national stage. Retail politics has long been a hit-and-miss game for the Bachmann campaign in Iowa, with the team doing excellent at one event and being plagued by missteps at another. If there was a time for her to rise up, meet the challenge that she’s been presented, this is it.

“I don’t care about flowery speeches. I don’t care about what color her clothes are or if her make-up is perfect. I care about her passion, and I’ve not been seeing it lately. She was hit hard when Perry entered the race, but she has an opportunity to not only win those supporters back, but to show that titanium spine. But if she doesn’t really put herself out there over the next month, this campaign is a loss.”

In a statement with his Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, Ellison said he’s been inspired by the growing protest movement.

“We share the anger and frustration of so many Americans who have seen the enormous toll that an unchecked Wall Street has taken on the overwhelming majority of Americans while benefitting the super wealthy,” Ellison wrote in a statement. “We stand with the American people as they demand corporate accountability and we support their use of peaceful means to improve America.”

Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold has also endorsed the demonstrators, saying that by the time the protests are over that they will make the Tea Party look like a “tea party.”

On the Republican side, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the occupations, which are spreading across the country, amount to “class warfare,” according to the National Journal. GOP presidential contender Herman Cain agreed, according to Talking Points Memo: “Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks — if you don’t have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!”

The protests have recently gained some establishment support from unions, adding the backing of an AFL-CIO youth congress and the New York City transit workers union to earlier support from the Industrial Workers of the World.

A Minnesota branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement plans to occupy a site in downtown Minneapolis Friday. Minnesota supporters have urged Ellison to attend the planned Friday occupation on Twitter. His spokesperson said he’ll still be in D.C. when the occupation is planned to start.

The Iowa Independent relies on academics, consultants, activists and political reporters to put together their Iowa Power Rankings.

The rankings noted that Bachmann’s campaign has continued its “downward spiral,” but that Bachmann is hanging on due to her smart Iowa organization.

Here’s how one Iowa expert put it: “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.”

Bachmann had previously been ranked as the candidate to beat, with many predicting that she’d continue to gather support throughout the fall and winter. Their views have changed, with none of the experts interviewed ranking her in the top spot.

All isn’t lost for Bachmann, according to one ranker: “[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.”

The people interviewed still saw Perry as the frontrunner, although noting that he was slipping. He’s followed in the rankings by Paul, who is seen as the only candidate who’s rallying his base. Mitt Romney is listed third, with Herman Cain showing some buzz in 5th place.

A screenshot from the new video.

The presidential campaign of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann released a video Tuesday featuring campaign manager Keith Nahigian outlining Bachmann’s “path to victory,” which includes a must-win scenario in Iowa.

“This is the beginning of the track to the presidency. She has to win Iowa then move on from there,” Nahigian narrates over the low-tech video. “Normally that happens and it triggers a lot of infusion of money, of support and a momentum wave of media that will take you all the way through. By winning Iowa she will be on the path to victory.”

Nahigian said the campaign expects to “compete” in New Hampshire, but not “dominate” like it plans to in Iowa.

“If she wins in Iowa, does well in NH, wins SC, she is basically on a very good path to win the nomination,” Nahigian said. “We are on the exact path that we designed and the exact path to victory.”

Bachmann has slipped to the back of the Republican pack in national polls. Some venues have also raised questions, citing the quality of another recent video, about her ability to raise funds to compete with big spenders like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

In a Politico posting that blended former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s campaign talking points with those of Mitt Romney, Pawlenty made the case that Romney has the best shot at beating Pres. Barack Obama in 2012.

Pawlenty argued he’s in a good position to judge Romney’s chance at the Oval Office because of his two statewide election wins in “blue state” Minnesota.

Pawlenty, who has officially backed Romney, warned that Pres. Barack Obama shouldn’t be underestimated, and said Republicans shouldn’t waste this opportunity by nominating a “vulnerable candidate.”

Pawlenty also took a veiled swipe at Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

“While Romney has long seen that Social Security has severe, long-term financial problems, he favors saving and protecting the program by fixing those problems,” Pawlenty wrote. “He has not denounced the program—as some have done—and called it unconstitutional. He has not proposed that Social Security be turned over to state governments.”

Pawlenty said those positions on Social Security are “untenable” and would “cost Republicans dearly in the election.”

The Romney campaign has recently targeted Perry on his Social Security stances, which use 10th Amendment rhetoric to appeal to the right-wing of the Republican Party. As the Washington Post notes, it’s not clear that those criticisms have hurt Perry in the polls yet.

Former Sen. Norm Coleman, chair of a non-profit group that pumped at least $18 million towards conservative candidates or issues in the last election cycle, is joining Mitt Romney’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination as a special advisor, Romney’s campaign said Wednesday.

“His advice will be critical as I lay out my vision for improving our economy at home and strengthening our partnerships around the world,” a statement on Romney’s campaign website read.

Coleman said Romney is the right candidate for this “important moment in our nation’s history.”

“Whether it is turning around our struggling economy or maintaining our relationships with international allies, the next President must have the experience and leadership to keep America strong at home and abroad,” Coleman said. “Electing someone who has not been tested by the fire of experience results in failure. The last three years have proven that.”

Coleman, who is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that Romney had the best position on Israel of any Republican candidate.

Coleman served as Minnesota U.S. Senator from 2003-2009. He failed in a bid against Sen. Al Franken in the 2008 election.

Coleman currently serves as chairman of the American Action Network (AAN), a conservative non-profit that spent at least $18 million in support of Republican candidates or positions in the 2010 election cycle, according to campaign finance records compiled by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW). Former Minnesota U.S. Rep. Vin Weber also sits on the board of the group, and has also endorsed Romney.

Coleman’s organization has attracted criticism for its use of a non-profit status that doesn’t require the group to disclose donors. CREW, a watchdog group, wrote a letter to the IRS asking them to reconsider the American Action Network’s non-profit status because of its political activity.

In August, the AAN spent about $1 million sending out ads and mailers on Medicare that Factcheck.org found were misleading. In 2012, the National Journal reports the group expects to spend in the “high tens of millions.”