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.

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?”

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich leveled particularly harsh criticism at Obama, saying he’s personally hurt the economy by attacking job creators.

“This country has been maniacally anti-jobs,” Gingrich said. “Obama is a left-wing radical who believes in class warfare and then he’s surprised that everybody who he’s attacking doesn’t create jobs.”

Gingrich then asked, “what did he think was going to happen?”

“You can’t go around the country and blame everybody who creates jobs and then say now gee, why didn’t you go out and take risk with your capital and spend the next five years of your lives creating jobs so I can attack you even more?” Gingrich said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered a similar evaluation, saying people have lost confidence in the federal government and are not willing to risk capital to invest in potential job-creating ventures.

“Let’s quit penalizing Americans for making money, quit fighting this fight that we’re fighting on divisions between those that have money and those that don’t,” he said. “I want everybody to have more money.”

And Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) also stuck the country’s economic woes on Obama, saying repealing federal health care reform legislation he championed would be a major step toward recovery.

“I think one of the biggest things we can do is repeal Obamacare,” he said. “That is a job crusher that is creating all sorts of uncertainty.”

Santorum called for eliminating the corporate income tax and allowing for tax-free repatriation of corporate profits being held overseas – estimated at more than $1 trillion – if the money is used to invest in job creation.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also called for no taxes on repatriated profits, but said companies should be able to use them however they want.

Bachmann said the biggest problem businesses have right now is uncertainty. She wants a moratorium on regulations, and to see health care reform repealed.

“That’s the biggest problem business has right now,” Bachmann said. “They have no idea what’s going to come out of Washington, D.C. when they wake up in the morning. And that’s why we need to have an immediate moratorium on regulations. It’s killing us.”

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said he’d like to see no taxes on repatriated profits and a 15 percent corporate tax rate.

“I want it very low because in many ways, they think…if you lower corporate taxes only the executive is going to benefit,” Paul said. “But the consumer benefits too. Corporate taxes are a form of a sales tax, and if they’re competitive they have to pass this on.”

But Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee, says the Republican candidates have it wrong. The group claims Obama has worked hard to get rid of undue regulations, and the regulations that have been put in place are meant to protect taxpayers and close loopholes.

A recent review from Bloomberg found Obama has put in place fewer regulations than former President George W. Bush had at this point in his tenure.

National frontrunners Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not attend the forum, held in Pella.

Pawlenty quit his candidacy after a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Straw Polls.

As conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg points out, Pawlenty’s strategy was to “[b]e the most electable candidate to the right of Romney.”

But in a crowded conservative field, Pawlenty’s message didn’t really spark with voters, who kept him in the single digits throughout early polling.

Since then, the campaigns of both Perry and Bachmann have run into some bumps, with Herman Cain and Mitt Romney now ascending to the top of the heap. The Atlantic points out that neither of these two candidates have much of an Iowa ground operation, which could mean the race is still in flux there.

This is where Goldberg sees a spot for Pawlenty:

“His problem stemmed from the fact that he’s a vanilla guy who thought he needed to convince conservatives he was a more exciting flavor. He should have waited, because vanilla may not be anyone’s first choice, but it’s almost everyone’s second choice.”

Isaac Chotiner at the New Republic chimes in with a similar angle, calling Pawlenty a “more credible alternative to Romney.”

Although Chotiner admits Pawlenty had financial troubles, he argues that his realistic chances of winning the endorsement merited staying in the race.

With the release of recent quarterly financial reports, it’s clear that Pawlenty was probably more than $500,000 in debt when he dropped out, as reports at the time suggested. Even now, Pawlenty’s debt sits at more than $450,000, with only $20,000 on hand. Not only did Pawlenty blow all his funds in the run-up to the Iowa Straw Poll, he spent way more than he had.

Pawlenty has said he regrets dropping out so early. But expanded on the decision to Minnesota Public Radio in October:

“We made some decisions that I think with the benefit of hindsight I would have done differently. I think if we had it to do over again, we would have probably metered out our resources lighter earlier so we could have made them last longer,” Pawlenty said. “Instead, we went for a more dramatic piece of progress in that early Iowa contest, and I think we should have made a different decision.”

Even if Pawlenty had been willing to go even further into debt after the straw poll, Des Moines Register polling shows it may not have made a difference to actual Iowa voters.

The recent poll found that only 5 percent of voters would now choose Pawlenty as their first choice, with only 12 percent liking him on their second choice.

“Of course, had he continued to campaign, he might have moved the needle,” pollster J. Ann Selzer told the Des Moines Register. “But as of now, few are longing for him.”

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.”

Please join Minnesota Independent reporters at 7 p.m. this evening for a live tweet of the Republican presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nev.

Previous debates have included gaffes, accusations and outright inaccuracies. We’ll be here, along with our colleagues nationwide at the American Independent News Network, to offer context and analysis.

Our Twitter feed will be updated live on this page during the debate. Please don’t hesitate to engage with us, we’ll retweet you! The Twitter hashtag for the debate is #CNNDebate, and you can follow the Twitter account of the Minnesota Independent’s reporters @MnIndyLive (also, feel free to follow our story publishing account @MnIndy).

Bachmann focused on familiar themes, slamming “Obamacare” and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms while touting the need for fewer regulations to create jobs.

“I am a mother of 28 kids, 23 foster kids, 5 biological kids. I get how difficult it is for young people right now to get jobs right out of college. The business world is looking at $1.8 trillion every year in compliance costs, with government regulations. That has to go,” Bachmann said. ”But the number one reason that employers say that they are not hiring today is Obamacare, and I was the leading critic for President Obama in Washington, D.C. against Obamacare, that’s why I was the first member of Congress to introduce that bill to repeal Obamacare. I understand that’s what’s inhibiting job creation and job growth.”

The statement blaming health care reform for job loss was labelled “misleading” by CNN’s fact-checkers.

She also insisted during the debate that health care reform spearheaded by Pres. Barack Obama would create a 15-member panel that would “make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans.” CNN fact-checked that statement and found it false.

The Associated Press also found that a Bachmann statement blaming the economic crisis on availability of affordable housing loans ignored the role of unregulated mortgage lenders in rolling those loans into securities that Wall Street then snapped up.

But despite some of Bachmann’s questionable statements, she was heralded for her performance Tuesday, with Politico saying she delivered a “solid performance” as “the Michele Bachmann conservatives fell in love with during the campaign’s early debates.”

Bachmann largely focused on content that would appeal to social conservatives, many of whom first abandoned her for Rick Perry and now Herman Cain. She criticized Cain’s 9-9-9 economic plan as yet another possible revenue stream for government to use.

“When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details,” Bachmann said.

Bachmann’s campaign touted her performance to reporters in a press release after the debate titled “Bachmann dominates at economic debate.”

Bachmann started a campaign swing this week through New Hampshire, where she’s mostly been absent. Her campaign is largely focused on Iowa, where she hopes to gain the support of the conservatives that dominate the state’s GOP.

The anonymous project, which dubs voices over Bachmann’s actual words, released the video Monday on Youtube. The visual portion is based on a series of event promotions Bachmann did in June for her presidential bid.

Earlier Bad Lip-Reading remixes include music videos like “Gang Fight,” a re-imagination of Rebecca Black’s “Friday.”

Among the words of wisdom in the video lampooning Bachmann:

“When I buy stickers for folks in prison, it’s better to bring milk, not backyard meth, it’s a prison party.”

“I went from being two banana plants up to a thrill-seeking shark who sold pictures of different toys I wanted.”

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.