Is Rick Santorum rising fast enough to finish in the top two on Tuesday? The Des Moines Register’s final Iowa poll before the caucuses is one of many to show Santorum gaining strength. Representative Steve King and Senator Chuck Grassley made positive comments about Santorum’s campaign over the weekend. Although Rick Perry is criticizing Santorum’s record in Congress, there’s not enough time left to make an effective case against the latest “not Romney” through paid media.

The new Iowa polling numbers are after the jump, along with news from the stump and some candidates’ closing Iowa television and radio ads.

The Des Moines Register posted toplines from Selzer & Co’s latest poll of likely Republican caucus-goers on New Year’s Eve.

Mitt Romney 24 percent

Ron Paul 22 percent

Rick Santorum 15 percent

Newt Gingrich 12 percent

Rick Perry 11 percent

Michele Bachmann 7 percent

The Register’s staff emphasized Santorum’s move as the big news.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co interviewed 2,527 registered Republican and independent voters in Iowa between December 27 and 30. The likely caucus-goer sample includes 602 respondents who said they would definitely or probably participate in the January 2012 Republican caucus. The margin of error for likely GOP caucus-goers is plus or minus 4 percent, but the margin of error for the group sampled on the final two nights of the poll was plus or minus 5.6 percent.

Ann Selzer wrote a short piece for the Sunday Des Moines Register analyzing a few different scenarios. If evangelical Christians make up as large a proportion of GOP caucus-goers as they did in 2008, Santorum would win according to the latest poll’s data. If senior citizens form as large a share of the electorate as they did four years ago, Romney would widen his lead and Paul would finish third. A larger than usual number of independents caucusing on Tuesday “narrows the spread,” but Romney would still slightly lead Paul and Santorum.

I wondered whether the new Iowa poll understated Paul’s support by not including any registered Democrats in the sample. Selzer anticipated that question:

We mounted a separate study to gauge the likely incidence of registered Democrats intending to caucus for the Republicans and to look at their candidate preference. On both nights, we found the incidence to be 3 percent. That is, of 200 conversations with registered Democrats, just six said they would definitely or probably attend the Republican caucuses. That is statistically too few to have measurable impact, unless the race is tight and all these registered Democrats opt for the same candidate.

This is the most fascinating part of our test. Each of the six had a different candidate preference: one each for Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry and Romney, and one for “other.” Only Bachmann and Santorum fail to attract one of the six votes.

Maybe “Democrats for Paul” is mostly a Des Moines and Iowa City phenomenon. I’ve heard about plenty of Democrats planning to vote for Paul in Polk County. UPDATE: Democrat Francis Thicke announced on January 1 that he plans to caucus for Paul; see details at the end of this post.

Rick Santorum’s ascent was apparent in an NBC/Marist Iowa poll that came out on December 30:

Romney 23 percent

Paul 21 percent

Santorum 15 percent

Perry 14 percent

Gingrich 13 percent

Bachmann 6 percent

I would never have thought Bachmann could finish below 10 percent in Iowa. I don’t know what hurt her more: the lack of funds to run a significant paid media campaign here or the holiday break between the final debates and the caucuses. Bachmann focused her criticism on Romney, Gingrich and Paul in the December debates. Now she is also questioning Perry’s claim to be a political outsider. Still, her support seems to be bleeding to Santorum and Perry. Last week’s betrayal by her former Iowa campaign chair, Kent Sorenson, threw her completely off message.

It will only get worse for Bachmann if her close friend Steve King endorses another candidate, as seems possible. Speaking to Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics on December 31, King predicted that Romney, Santorum and Paul would finish first, second and third on Tuesday. Conroy got the impression that King is on the fence between endorsing Romney and Santorum. In late December 2007, King surprised many observers (including Romney staffers) by backing Fred Thompson for president.

Senator Chuck Grassley still isn’t endorsing, but he sees Romney, Paul, Perry and Santorum with a path to continuing their campaigns beyond Iowa.

Public Policy Polling will release its final Iowa caucus survey soon, and that too will show momentum for Santorum. PPP’s Tom Jensen tweeted on Saturday night, “Given the current trajectory I think there’s some chance Santorum could win Iowa without ever leading in a poll.”

Santorum started running this radio ad a few days ago. A male voice-over describes Santorum as the “trusted conservative” with the “best chance” to beat President Barack Obama and take back America: “Finally, a candidate we can all unite behind.” I always wonder how Republicans think a guy who lost his last campaign by more than 15 points can win the general election.

Santorum’s volunteers have been playing up his gains in the polls as they try to turn out Republicans for the caucuses. His campaign claims to have speakers lined up to advocate for him in more than 1,000 precincts across the state. Santorum has also been telling crowds that a victory for him would help the Iowa caucuses by giving future presidential candidates a reason to do the retail campaigning Iowans love.

Because Santorum has good favorability ratings, he has potential to increase his support as more Iowans believe he can win. Rick Perry is now trying to puncture Santorum’s image as a solid conservative:

“When he talks about fiscal conservatism, every now and then it kind of leaves me scratching my head because he was a prolific earmarker,” Perry told a group of caucus goers at the Coffee Corner here [in Washington, Iowa]. “As we talk about the things that are wrong with Washington, D.C., these earmarks are a great example of how the runaway spending has occurred.”

Earmarks direct approved funds to specific projects or programs.

“I love Iowa pork, but I hate Washington pork, and Sen.  Santorum, he loaded up his bills with Pennsylvania pork,” Perry continued. “He even voted for the Alaska bridge to nowhere.”

Perry cited a 2009 quote in which Santorum relayed his pride and eagerness to defend the earmarks he included in his bills.

“Well Sen.  Santorum, I’m going to give you that opportunity to defend your earmarks because earmarks are the gateway drug to the spending habit that they have in Washington D.C. It’s what’s wrong with Congress,” said Perry.

Perry is wrong about earmarks. They don’t increase federal spending at all, they merely increase Congressional control over how federal funds are spent. Ron Paul made that point in the Sioux City GOP debate last month, but it probably went over most Republicans’ heads.

Perry also has a radio ad up criticizing Santorum:

The ad mimics a game show, asking questions of contestants like “Which Republican running for president voted for the bridge to nowhere?” and “Who personally demanded more that $1 billion in earmarks to his sixteen years in Congress?”

Each time the announcer proclaims the answer: “Rick Santorum!”

The spot features a clip of Santorum saying he was “very proud of the earmarks” he wrote into spending legislation.

“Rick Santorum is proud of feeding at the earmark trough in Congress,” Perry’s ad proclaims.

Too little, too late in my opinion. I actually think it would hurt Santorum more if Iowa caucus-goers learned that he billed Pennsylvania taxpayers for his children’s schooling in Virginia. The scandal became an issue in Santorum’s 2006 re-election campaign, but there’s no time to spread the word about that before Tuesday night.

Perry does have a pretty good tv ad up featuring his call for a part-time Congress:

It’s strange that this has become a big applause line with Republicans. Richard Gates, a tea party candidate for Congress in Iowa’s second district, made the case against Perry’s “cheap sound bytes” here:

Would not such a change shift the balance of power to the executive and the judicial even more? And doesn’t this position play upon the emotions, rather than a vision to retore our republic and give people more of a voice.

We have been witness to the overreaching power of the Whitehouse for decades. The dozens of federal agencies and czars that legislate through regulation.

I contend that Congress does not have enough to do, they have delegated that authority and responsibility to federal agencies and bureaucrats, while providing only a bare minimum of leadership and oversight.

I can’t help but wonder how Governor Perry feels about making the executive branch a part time job? I wonder if the Governor has actually ever held a private sector job?

I won’t be baited on feel good campaigning that will hurt our ability to be fully represented.

When your house is on fire, it’s not a good time to lay off firemen.

Gates has not endorsed a presidential candidate, incidentally.

Speaking of the tea party, I was surprised to read in the Des Moines Register today that the new Iowa poll found Ron Paul doing poorly among self-described tea party supporters. This guy is rightly called the godfather of the tea party. Anyway, Selzer & Co found that Paul does best with independents and is relatively strong among younger, male, lower-income and less-educated voters. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, some of Paul’s advertising is heavy on the testosterone. But in the past few days I’ve also seen this commercial aimed at women on cable television.

I would guess that is an effective message for an anti-choice female audience. Paul has emphasized his “pro-life” credentials in Iowa television commercials before, especially in this ad launched in October:

Paul’s big catch from the past week was Bachmann’s former campaign chair, which generated a ton of free media coverage. He may have picked up a few dozen more votes from former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson calling on all his Iowa supporters to vote for Paul this Tuesday.  Johnson never built up an organization here and was excluded from almost all the Republican presidential debates. He is now seeking the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

Although all recent Iowa polls show Gingrich fading fast, the former House speaker did pick up one prominent Iowa backer on New Year’s Eve: radio talk show host Steve Deace. You can watch the clip of Deace endorsing Gingrich on Fox News here. He described Gingrich is the only candidate willing to counter an “out-of-control judiciary.” Asked specifically why he didn’t support candidates considered more conservative, like Bachmann or Santorum, Deace said the election is about “providing a mechanism” to undo what “the left is doing to this country.” Only Paul and Gingrich have shown a willingness to do that, and Deace rejects Paul because of his “reckless” foreign policy views. He said it’s not about “platitudes” or who does the best on the “Republican Party platform test,” it’s about bringing the rule of law back to this country.

I’m surprised that Deace didn’t endorse Santorum. He has also said the judiciary should be subservient to other branches of government. But only Gingrich really pushed that issue in the presidential debates.

Gingrich finally has some positive television ads up in Iowa, but he’s still outgunned by hit pieces, particularly from Perry’s campaign and a pro-Romney super-PAC. His latest campaign swing through Iowa got a fair amount of free media coverage, but a ridiculous amount of the commentary focused on Gingrich tearing up while talking about his late mother in Des Moines.

Any comments about the presidential race are welcome in this thread.

P.S. In case you were wondering, Republicans will count paper ballots at each of 1,774 precincts across the state. Representatives of various candidates will watch to verify the totals and listen as the precinct chair calls the results in to the state party. The state GOP will not recount the paper ballots, but will tabulate the results from all precincts at an “undisclosed location.”

P.P. S. – Iowans may be interested in five potential re-election scenarios that Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina laid out a few days ago. He described these possible paths to 270 electoral votes for Obama: states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 plus Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (272 electoral votes); Kerry states plus Florida (275 EVs); Kerry states plus North Carolina and Virginia (274 EVs); Kerry states plus Iowa and Ohio (270 EVs); and Kerry states minus Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, plus Iowa, Virginia, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico (272 EVs).

UPDATE: Francis Thicke, the organic farmer from Fairfield who was the Democratic nominee for Iowa secretary of Agriculture in 2010, posted this message today on his Facebook page:

On Tuesday I plan to become a Republican for a day and caucus for Ron Paul. I want to keep Ron Paul’s voice for peace in the presidential debates as long as possible, so he can refute the warmongering rhetoric of the other Repbulican candidates.

I forgot to mention that the National Organization for Marriage has been robocalling Iowans this week. Many Democrats have received the call, including my household (two registered Ds, no Rs). Brian Brown starts by taking credit for helping to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010, then mentions that all the “major candidates” for president have signed a pledge to protect marriage, except for Ron Paul. Brown urges Iowans to vote against Paul if they want to protect marriage. Maybe that script will work with social conservatives, but sending the call to thousands of Iowa Democrats is stupid. If anything, that could drum up more caucus-goers for Paul, who aren’t aware of anti-gay comments he has made in the past.

As Bleeding Heartland user albert noted in the comments, Kevin Hall posted a short history of Kent Sorenson sellouts at The Iowa Republican blog. Worth a read. I hope this episode does lasting damage to his career.

SECOND UPDATE: Steve Deace posted his caucus night speech on behalf of Gingrich at his blog. Excerpt:

For the past 50 years the left has used the courts to trash the Constitution and our God-given rights. It was a court that said your kids can’t pray in school or anywhere else. It was a court that said your hard-earned tax money has to go to illegal aliens. It was a court that said your family farm can be confiscated for so-called economic development. It was a court that said marriage can be redefined and destroyed. And it was a court that said you can murder your unborn child if you don’t want it.

Most of what disgusts us the most about what is happening to this great nation has come from the unelected judges, because your elected officials would never get away with this. As recent Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor admitted, federal courts are “where policy is made.” That is not what our Founding Fathers intended. They intended for the people to rule, not unelected judges with lifetime appointments.

Most of you know this, which is why like me you rose up and fired those three judges last year. But did you know that effort wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without the help of Newt Gingrich? I was there and involved in this conversations behind the scenes, and I give you my word that without Newt we never defeat those judges.

This is why I trust Newt to follow through on his pledge to once and for all stop the Left from using the courts as a machete to rip apart the very fabric of the rule of law, and thus our Constitution. After having a chance to vet these candidates as thoroughly as anyone in Iowa has, Newt is the only candidate that both understands historically what has happened and also what must be done about it. And with our future teetering on the brink for my children and grandchildren, that matters more to me than any of his well-documented flaws-or the flaws of every other candidate we can point out.

We need a champion. We need leadership. We need someone that has actually balanced budgets, cut taxes, and reformed entitlements. All the things everyone else is promising, Newt has actually done. And he’s pledged both in writing publicly and to me privately to stand for the sanctity of life for every person born or unborn from conception.