GOP strategist Steve Schmidt, who previously served as Sen. John McCain’s senior campaign strategist, told MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow that if Mr. Gingrich wins next week’s Florida GOP primary, there will be “a panic and a meltdown of the Republican establishment that is beyond my ability to articulate in the English language. People will go crazy.”

Mr. Schmidt said he believes Mr. Gingrich’s near universal name recognition indicates that perceptions of Mr. Gingrich have calcified over time and are therefore unlikely to change.  With a national unfavorable rating that he puts at 60 percent, Mr. Schmidt says he believes a Gingrich candidacy could spell disaster for Republican hopes of holding the House and regaining the Senate.

Newt Gingrich has a 100% name ID, has a 60% national unfavorable number and it’s a number so high that with the 100% name ID it’s impossible to come back from. You’re not electable in a general election, in a 2012 presidential election if your unfavorable numbers are that high. Particularly against a president, that while vulnerable, is still a net positive in that number. So people look at Newt Gingrich and don’t see him as a plausible candidate in the general election, so the Republican establishment who thinks that the president is vulnerable and beatable is going to begin to melt down if Gingrich’s momentum continues.

Also something important to remember there are 33 House Republicans in districts that Barack Obama won. What is the impact in terms of Republicans being able to keep the House of Representatives in majority control if Newt Gingrich was the nominee of the party? What is the impact in the United State Senate races where Republicans have a great chance of taking majority control of the United States Senate?  With Newt Gingrich as the nominee of the party, that is, perhaps, all up in the air.

But an ABC News poll taken last December found Mr. Gingrich’s unfavorable rating (48 percent) was almost identical to that of President Barack Obama (49 percent).  The same poll, however, found that Mr. Obama’s favorable rating (48 percent) was 13 points higher than that of Mr. Gingrich (35 percent).

Still, other conservative commentators, like RedState.com editor and CNN contributor Erick Erickson, dismiss the dire GOP establishment’s soundings of doom as little more than fear that a Gingrich candidacy might diminish their influence and power within the Republican Party:

The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

They’ll lose alright — they’ll lose power to others. That’s their real fear.

However, other conservative commentators like bestselling author Ann Coulter believe that the voters of South Carolina made a colossal mistake:

Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.  We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, Demonic: How Mobs Behave…With Newt Gingrich, you throw out the baby and you keep the bath water.

For his part, Mr. Gingrich appears to be embracing his role in having stirred up a hornet’s nest among those in the GOP establishment.  During an appearance on Meet the Press the morning after his South Carolina primary victory, Mr. Gingrich said:

The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination….We are going to make the establishment very uncomfortable.  We are going to demand real change in Washington….I’m happy to be in the tradition of Ronald Reagan as the outsider who scares the Republican establishment.  And frankly, after the mess they made of things, maybe they should be shaken up pretty badly.

But, as New York Daily News writer Tom DeFrank writes:

The prospect of Gingrich carrying the GOP torch against Obama is anathema to party elders, who know his undisciplined side and personal baggage.

They understand Romney’s strong suit is electability, while Gingrich’s Achilles heel is unelectability.

“Newt’s absolutely brilliant,” recalled an admirer who negotiated with him in Congress. “He has 100 ideas; 97 are real good, the other three will blow up the world.”

So look for more party leaders currently “neutral-for-Romney” to get off the fence to inoculate against a Gingrich surge.

“Newt means losing 45 states,” a Mitt-leaning GOPer told the Daily News. “It would be a catastrophe for the country.”

Whether the GOP establishment’s fear that a Gingrich presidential candidacy might result in a Goldwater-esque shellacking is serious or merely election year bluster, one thing is certain: the anti-establishment sensibility of the Tea Party specifically, and the nation more broadly, are real.  Whether these forces–combined with Mr. Gingrich’s newfound momentum–will be enough to overtake Mr. Romney’s current lead in next week’s Florida GOP primary remains to be seen.

This is not Koch’s first such reversal. During the 2008 Democratic Party primary season, Koch had worried that a Barack Obama would not be a friend to Israel:

Hillary recently attempted to warn Iran that were it to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S. “would be able to totally obliterate them.” Hillary’s comments were totally in keeping with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which kept the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War when it threatened its European neighbors and members of NATO.

Instead of joining Hillary in a similar warning to Iran, Senator Obama on “Meet The Press” criticized Hillary stating, “It’s language reflective of George Bush…This kind of language is not helpful.”

Koch concluded:

We now know just how far Senator Obama is prepared to go to defend our friends and allies. It is not far enough.

Just four months later, without any change in Obama’s positions, Koch endorsed Barack Obama.

Then he went off to heavily Jewish states to convince American Jews that Israel should not be an issue in the campaign because Obama and McCain were equal in their support of Israel.

Once Obama was elected and proved to be horrible for America and Israel, Ed Koch became a leading critic of the POTUS and his anti-Israel policies. In March 2010 he wrote a commentary for the progressive Huffington Post called “Never Again Should We Be Silent“:

Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did – protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

In April 2010 Koch doubled down, telling Neil Cavuto on Fox News;

“I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore,” Koch told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got a chilly reception at the White House last week after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem during a visit from Vice President Biden. The announcement drew sharp condemnations from Washington and calls to cancel the construction plans – requests that Netanyahu says he will not heed.

Koch said he believes Obama “orchestrated” what happened in Israel.

“What they did is they wanted to make Israel into a pariah,” he said. “It’s outrageous in my judgment. “

Koch said he’s shocked that Congress, which largely supports Israel hasn’t “stood up and said to the president, ‘you’re wrong on this, Mr. President.’”

Koch went on to say the self-serving Chuck Schumer had explained to him he wouldn’t speak out against Obama’s Israel positions publicly because he was working behind the scenes to get Obama to change is policy (it didn’t work). The former mayor continued by saying Schumer promised to speak out against Obama publicly should he not change his policies (Schumer hasn’t). He concluded by saying:

“I believe that the Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please Muslim nations.”

Just this past September, Koch was a big part of the GOP victory in the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in NY-9. Koch’s reason for supporting the Republican Bob Turner was to send a message to President Obama.

If Jewish New Yorkers and others who support Israel were to turn away from the Democratic Party in that congressional election and elect the Republican candidate to Congress in 2011, it might very well cause President Obama to change his hostile position on the State of Israel and to reestablish the special relationship presidents before him had supported. His own reelection will be decided next year in 2012. The outcome of the 2011 congressional special election in the 9th Congressional District will certainly get his attention.

The former Mayor made this political threat to the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave:

But if he doesn’t read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum. I will campaign against him not only in New York, but in other parts of the country next year. I’ll be loud and clear about what I believe. There are many Floridians who are concerned about the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel, and Florida will be crucial to the President’s reelection.

This week however, the once strong-minded Mayor made the same flip-flop he made in 2008 as he hosted an Obama fundraising event which raised a half a million dollars from 100 members of the Jewish community.

Koch’s change of heart comes the same week as the release of multiple reports of the Obama administration warning Israel not to defend herself against Iran.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Even though I disagreed with many of his positions, Ed Koch was one of my political heroes. He seemed to be a different kind of politician–one who put convictions in front of party affiliation.

I should have known better.  Ed Koch is comfortable bashing Obama until he sees the election coming–and suddenly any backbone is replaced by a wet noodle.

No voter should ever pick a President solely based on his position about Israel. I could understand if the former Mayor said that other issues were  much more important than Israel in the coming election. That is not what happened.

In 2008 he reversed himself lying about Obama to Jewish voters; saying the future President was McCain’s equal on the issues of terrorism and Israel. Now he is trying to do it again, first promising “But if he doesn’t read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum,” then breaking his promise.

Despite the fact that Obama has not budged in his anti-Israel positions, Ed Koch is trying to fool us once again and convince Jews that Obama is a Zionist.

When Koch was mayor he used to walk around the NYC saying “How am I doing?” The answer today is…. lousy!

But some of the claims may simply illustrate a man who is committed to his own ideals, loyal to those around him and perhaps trying to do what is morally right–maybe even by hiring advisers to offer him objective perspectives so that he doesn’t just have people around him who mimic his own views. Among some of the exacerbated criticisms are the following with an alternative counter-point below each allegation:

1. “Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary”

Tsongas was a Senator from Massachusetts, Romney’s own state.

2. “Romney was an independent until deciding to run for the Senate in 1994.”

Mitt Romney’s 1994 bid for U.S. Senate was his first attempt at running for political office. It should be no surprise that he was independent before then since independents make up the majority of Massachusetts voters–some of whom remain non-party affiliated or “unenrolled” so that they can opt to vote in either primary in each election. According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Elections Division online records, in February 1994  there were 418, 298 registered Republicans, 1,283,986 registered Democrats, but 3,174,759 total voters, which leaves 1,471,500 unenrolled voters. Romney was no different than the largest class of Massachusetts voters.

3. “Romney has surrounded himself with policy advisors – like Gregory Mankiw, Vin Weber, Kerry Healey, Bill Weld and more – who do not share his beliefs on key issues.”

Bill Weld was a Republican, but also socially liberal. Romney wanted advisers who would actually enlighten him instead of just parrot his own beliefs.

4. “In Late 2002, Romney Described Himself As ‘Progressive On Social Issues.’”

Not all Republicans have conservative social views. It has been rumored that socially liberal Republicans are on the decline, but Romney’s nomination could potentially help draw in moderates and centrists who are undecided.

5. “Romney Has Made Political Contributions to Democratic Candidates.”

He believed in those candidates. Was Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman wrong to support President George W. Bush and his decision to liberate Iraq?

Romney’s critics always portray him as a flip-flopping closet liberal, but they fail to recognize the inconvenient truth that Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the union. It would be difficult to hire advisers or appoint good people who do not have some history with the Democratic Party. It would also be difficult to win in Massachusetts without being able to relate to some of the more centrist or even liberal positions the general state population has.

The document describes Romney as having “praised Kennedy almost as much as he criticized him” and quotes a November 1994 article in the Christian Science Monitor, which said that “Romney… is socially liberal in the tradition of many Massachusetts Republicans.”

Exactly.

So what went wrong? A lot, but the simplest explanation may be the best.

Here it is from Ed Morrissey: “He governed in Utah as a conservative in a state controlled by the GOP, but talked like a centrist who despised conservatives. Huntsman’s expensive and embarrassing flop really isn’t much more complicated than that.”

In essence, Jon Huntsman lacked the temperament necessary to be president. His announcement that he would “take the high road came had a whiff of moral arrogance,” as George F. Will put it, created a stench that never really left his campaign. As Will rightly noted, there is always a candidate who runs who doesn’t much care for the party whose nomination he is seeking.

Huntsman seemed to believe that he was above it all. In his calls for civility, he was often uncivil–saying, for example that “they pick corn in Iowa,” he told CBS’s Early Show, “and pick presidents in New Hampshire.”

He snidely tweeted, “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” suggesting, if not declaring, that the primary voters who have their doubts about both theories might be batty. He called Mitt Romney, the man he is now endorsing, a “perfectly lubricated weather vane” who has been on “three sides of every issue.”

His daughters, who were campaign surrogates, attacked the other candidates with a parody of Justin Timberlake’s song “Sexy Back.”

“We’re bringing Huntsman back, the rest of them is one big circus act. We’re right behind the guy who’s right on track,” they sang in a song released in late November.

The song was an attack on all of the candidates, in the most demeaning of tones.  But now Huntsman wants the candidates to stop attacking one another. Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough actually argued that he was “not enough of a hater to win,” but Huntsman slug mud with the best of them, especially at Ron Paul–who he tried to portray as a crazy, old uncle.

But the real reason that the Huntsman campaign faltered was its confused messaging. On the one hand, he wanted to be the conservative candidate who had backed school choice in Utah (the truth was a lot more complicated), who had cut taxes, and who could talk tough with the Chinese in Chinese; on the other hand, he was a maverick figure who rocked out in a band and drove a motorcycle and who recycled John McCain’s old slogan of “Country First.”

Tactically, he failed to divide the Mormon money backing up Mitt Romney by being something of a Mormon in Name Only. It didn’t play well in Salt Lake City that he wasn’t very religious and was raising his adopted daughter in her native Hindu faith.

He also failed to get the mainstream conservative money, because Romney had already taken it.  He didn’t campaign in Iowa; he canceled his appearance at the Republican Leadership Conference; he skipped debates; and he focused too much on later states, New Hampshire and Florida, to win any of the early earned media. He failed to qualify for the ballot in Arizona and Virginia, and he made the same mistake that Rudy Giuliani had in running for mayor of Miami, only this time as Mayor of New Hampshire.

His biggest tactical error is that he had trusted John Weaver, who ran the failed presidential campaigns of John McCain in 2000 and 2008. Weaver continued the slurs against Republicans and the Right that John McCain had made his bailiwick. “There’s a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party,” Weaver told Esquire in June 2011. “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” He also attacked the Republican field as the “weakest since 1940.”

But the Republicans were a governing party after 2010, and Weaver’s analysis undercut all of the efforts by Tea Partiers and limited government conservatives who had worked to make it so. The thinking was that in playing for the moderate, Independent vote, Huntsman could win enough non-Republican votes to win the primary. But that failed to consider the political realities on the ground: the country’s independents had swung decisively for the Republican party in 2010, and there was little reason for them to leave.

If the Republican field is weak in 2012, as Weaver contends, it is partly because of the weakness of Republican presidential candidates like George W. Bush and John McCain to articulate the differing principles behind their governing philosophies and those of their opponents. Additionally, the Republican losses in 2006 and 2008 make it really hard to field a good candidate when there are too few candidates who survived the Bush backlash.

Perhaps Huntsman’s largest fault is that he didn’t consider that there is already a candidate in the race who is the moderate–namely, Romney. From now until the general election, I would expect Huntsman to launch a new campaign… to be Romney’s s Secretary of State. That could be Romney’s way of defending himself from the left-wing critics who say he has turned too far to the right.

Well, I predicted that Jon Huntsman would pull off that upset on Breitbart.tv with Steve Bannon and Larry O’Connor, back when it was a long shot. Here’s what led me to that conclusion. Take a gander at the WMUR-University of New Hampshire poll:

While Paul does best among Undeclared voters who identify as independents with 30%, followed by Huntsman (24%), and Romney (24%). And among Undeclared voters who identify as Democrats, Huntsman does best with 39%, followed by Romney (23%), and Paul (16%).

New Hampshire allows same-day registration for voting.

It remains to be seen if Huntsman’s strategy of appealing to his country first has any real play with these independent-minded voters. His penultimate ad of the New Hampshire campaign trail is titled “Country First,” much like John McCain’s same “Country First” slogan in 2008.

Perhaps Huntsman is seeking to be the John McCain of 2008. Unlike most of his co-religionists who endorsed Romney in 2008, Huntsman endorsed McCain. John McCain could not have won New Hampshire without Undeclareds and Democrats coming out to vote in the Republican primary in 2008. Jon Huntsman has one of the more conservative records in the field, but he inexplicably teamed up with John Weaver, a former McCain advisor in 2000 and 2008 to run a moderate campaign. Huntsman is polling behind Colbert in South Carolina and he has failed to qualify in many primary states (not just VA). He didn’t make the cut in Arizona as announced earlier today.

Still his father, Jon Huntsman Sr, is worth more than $5 billion, meaning he has more resources to put into his son’s campaign and PAC.

Add to that Huntsman Sr.’s desire to “die broke” by giving away his money to charity. You might have the older Huntsman giving away some of his money to the biggest charity case of the 2012 election: his son.

GOP insider and strategist Charles Krauthammer recently tagged the 2012 Republican candidates as “embarrassing.”  To the contrary, I believe the GOP has good candidates who have A: failed to learn from their predecessors mistakes in 2008 and/or B: suffer from a timid, frantic, backbiting GOP establishment who distrust the minds and intellect of the conservative voter and the power of conservative ideals. Therefore if Huntsman can wait on the GOP to choke on Romney he will by default he get his turn and perhaps just in time. How is that for embarrassing?

The problem for Republicans in 2012 election isn’t a fleet of poor candidates. The lack of support and backbone from the Republican establishment that would allow them to play to win is killing us. The GOP is choking. In tennis, choking happens most when the better player realizes he should and can win. Instead of going for the shots that got him in a winning position, he plays not to lose hoping his opponent will give him the match.  One backhand in the net or one forehand sailed long, and he is immediately thrown off course, convinced that he must play it safe. This has been the GOP for the past nine months which explains the ushering in and out of every running Republican candidate where no one has shown the longevity to make it to the final.

Each GOP candidate has found a way to self destruct at the moment of their ascent with their base helping them to the door on the way down. Of late, it is Santorum who after being non-existent in the media’s and voter’s eyes (at least it appeared) followed Mitt Romney by a mere eight votes in Iowa. Santorum placed well because he is a true family values candidate who isn’t afraid to put God, family, faith, and conservative values first.  But look at Santorum now. Not only are his GOP allies saying that he cannot win, but he helped support that theory by using black and welfare in the same sentence. A rookie mistake for any white conservative candidate running against the first black President.  With the NAACP and Hillary Clinton on his tail and unwillingness by conservatives to have the courage and will to take a hit for a candidate in the face of controversy and trouble, someone may as well cue the “nana na-na, nana na-na, hey hey hey…

It isn’t that Santorum is alone. Just look at how quickly Herman Cain’s bags were packed as soon as the media told the establishment he had to go. Though Cain’s infidelity scandals were circumstantial and a matter of he said she said folly the media told us we could not abide immorality. The GOP establishment balked – since they never approved Cain anyway – and the media got away with the same scam they pulled in 2008 with Sarah Palin. (The truth isn’t that the media objected to the affairs but that they couldn’t risk all those white Iowans handing Cain a significant victory.) Win for Obama.

Did we learn nothing from the media with McCain/Palin in 200?  The media initially tolerated McCain because they knew he was no threat to Obama.  And the establishment approved of McCain because they approved him. Nothing to see here.  But as soon as McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate bells rang. The media sniffed defeat at her strong conservative values and outsider appeal. With that the media wore McCain and the base down with their scoffing of Palin. The fact that the media was all over Palin should have told McCain that he was finally cooking with hot grease. Instead, he choked. The uncertainty and fracturing of the party was toxic to the voters. Win for Obama.

With Cain out, Newt Gingrich was next on top.  Voters found Newt Gingrich’s quick wit and insider experience reassuring imagining he could cut Obama down to size in the debates and lend common sense to getting the country back on track. He’d had affairs but was forgiven by the media, the establishment and conservative voters. (The media knew they couldn’t replay the sex scandal card so quickly after Cain so they let the GOP base do their work for them.) The establishment quickly warned voters of Newt’s deception: his wisdom, arrogance; his experience, political profiteering. And, his mood and temperament volatile and explosive.  Before Gingrich could have the “courage to run a positive campaign” as he instructed Mitt Romney, his campaign bled out to fourth place in Iowa.  Win for Obama.

At least Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum were given some credence for a spell whereas other candidates peaked too quickly or were over rated before they took the stage. Michelle Bachmann who won the first Iowa straw poll and debated gaffe free for nine months was foiled from the start for being a woman. Ann Coulter made it clear that Republicans are not willing to take any chances on “making a Congresswoman the first female President” no matter how sensible and sound her platform and judgment. Win for Obama.

Governor Rick Perry was someone the establishment could get behind until they couldn’t. When Perry made the gaffe at the debate where he forgot a department of Government he would cut, he was immediately off the list. The establishment turned away as the leftist media licked Perry’s bones clean. The point was made clear that while a good ole boy Governor was good enough for Texas, it wouldn’t do against Obama and his teleprompter on the national scene. His Texas twang is just too risky. Perry had the record, the name, and the money, but in the end lost the backing of the GOP establishment over a delay and a drawl. Win for “57 states” Obama.

Which leaves Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and John Huntsman.  In Romney’s case the GOP is firmly behind him as they believe he can win: he has the money, looks, charisma, some conservative ideas – when he needs them – and experience. What Romney does not have however, is the confidence of the core conservative voter. The fact that Ron Paul was a close third in Iowa proves as much. While establishment conservatives approve of him, something about RomneyCare, even if it is in Massachusetts, and his slick ways from his hair to his tongue holds back the approval of the average American conservative. Still, Romney has yet to double fault or put a backhand in the net so he lives for now. This is still a win for Obama since Republicans are betting on Romney by default (admittedly so) and for all the wrong reasons.

Instead of making these last nine months about how any one of these candidates run circles around Obama in class, values and experience, the GOP participated in childish infighting against their own that actually made Obama appear all grown up and Presidential. It is not that we are missing prime candidates; rather our candidates are being thwarted by a disloyal and conformist base. While Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of sycophantic Obamaphiles on the left, Republicans demand that candidates not use “um” and “you know” in a debate. A pointed finger, or a curious tilt of the head towards the candidate in question and the GOP is unsure, unsteady and on the defensive.

And, then there is Huntsman yet to get his due. With no one for or against him at this point, it’s a win for him.  Only thing is he will have to peak at just the right moment and wait for the establishment to see that the only reason no one on the left is picking on Romney is because they are not threatened by him. Or, he can hope that conservative voters get a backbone and listen to their gut and not the media, right or left. This would finally be playing to win.

Rick Santorum greets voters in New Hampshire (Source: Yahoo News)

South Carolina is emerging as the key battleground in the Republican primary for 2012–and the campaigns are accelerating their ad buys in the state.

Since his success in Iowa, Rick Santorum has raised $2 million in two days, $250,000 of it online. Santorum is using the money for a 1,000-point television ad buy in South Carolina–a very significant campaign, aiming, generally, to ensure that the targeted audience sees the ad ten times. (Air time is cheaper in South Carolina than in Iowa or New Hampshire, where the same ad buy would be more expensive.)

When Santorum enters the TV ad market, he’ll find he’s got competition. According to data obtained by Big Government, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have purchased $295,273, $486,118, and $223,992, respectively, worth of television ads thus far. (SuperPACs supporting Romney and Paul have booked $147,000 and $185,000 respectively. Another SuperPAC supporting Romney spent $1.1 million last month. A SuperPAC supporting Santorum is preparing a significant ad buy of its own.)

There’s little other data to guide predictions in South Carolina: prior to last night, here had not been a poll reported from South Carolina since December 18, 2011–fully eighteen days prior. That is an eternity in this election cycle. Eighteen days before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich was leading them. On caucus night, he was in a distant fourth place. Such is the fluidity of polling in this presidential campaign.

The Democratic polling firm, Public Policy Polling, had Romney leading by ten points in South Carolina last night, on its first night of polling.  Remember, though, that this was the same polling firm that predicted Ron Paul would win the Iowa caucuses. It routinely overstates moderate Republican support and discounts conservative Republican support. Still, if that ten points holds, the race is over.

Rasmussen’s numbers–just out this morning–are a more optimistic for Santorum, and reflect his new status as the top contender to challenge Romney. With Romney at 27 percent, Santorum at 24 percent, and Gingrich at 13 percent, the new numbers suggest a significant shift in the race. Perry is a distant fifth (behind Ron Paul) at 5 percent.

Confident of a win in New Hampshire, where he is leading by a wide margin, Romney traveled today to South Carolina with Senator John McCain and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley alongside. McCain narrowly won South Carolina in 2008 after former Senator Fred Thompson drew enough of the southern support to prevent Mike Huckabee from winning it. The Romney campaign is hoping that support for McCain and Haley in South Carolina will be enough to earn him votes.

However, a poll by Winthrop University between Nov. 27 and Dec. 4 showed only 34.6% of South Carolinians approve of Haley’s performance. Regardless, Romney’s been cutting ads showing his opposition to the National Labor Relations Board and Obama’s “union stooges” who fought Boeing over plans to expand production in the Palmetto State.

Rick Perry also believes he is in the hunt for South Carolina, sending out a mailer yesterday to raise $250,000 to keep his campaign alive. There are a number of competing theories as to why the Texas governor decided to stay in the race for the presidency.  The most likely of these scenarios, chronicled in The National Journal and by Nate Silver at The New York Times, seems to be that his South Carolina team, lead by Katon Dawson, see a strategy for him to win South Carolina. Dawson knows South Carolina politics very well. He barely lost to Michael Steele for chairmanship of the Republican National Committee in 2009 and has grown the South Carolina Republican party outside of its traditional ranks.

Whatever the result in Tuesday in New Hampshire, it is South Carolina that may pick the winner–as it has in every Republican presidential primary since 1980.