Same for Paul and Perry. Paul clearly has zero chance to secure the nomination and simply enjoys the spotlight. Perry melted under the spotlight of constant national media attention and most people don’t want a W clone (and Perry comes across as just that).
It seems that Cain’s supporters (including me) saw him as a voice for common sense conservatism AND as the best non-Romney in the field. But in the glare of media scrutiny, Cain has been tested and comes up lacking; it is not the allegations that are causing many of us to question Cain’s suitability, but rather Cain’s forced errors in other aspects of the campaign - that seem to have been brought on due to the close scrutiny (due to his meteoric rise and the allegations) he has been under.
Among the candidates who have a practical chance of being nominate and then elected, who is the voice for common sense conservatism AND as the best non-Romney in the field? Many people are answering: Gingrich. But it is hard to decide as each candidate has flaws (and the media will unfairly expose them and ignore Obama’s no matter who the GOP nominee is).
I suppose the primary process will narrow the field somewhat. I vote in one of the early primaries, so I might choose to send a message by voting for a “no-compromise” candidate like Bachman (who I am not convinced would make a good president, but whose positions and passion are generally admirable).
Orders of magnitude better so than Obama, and much closer to the conservative values we espouse and cherish than the other GOP candidates currently at the table.
Iowa is going to say a lot in this regard.