"I think there's a general belief that this thing could move fast and late," says Bob Vander Plaats, a leading Iowa social conservative and political insider, discussing the Republican presidential caucus race. "Dramatically fast and dramatically late."
If the race works anything like it did the last time around, Gingrich will be the winner. Back in 2007, Mitt Romney led in every poll from June to November. Mike Huckabee began to move up in October and took the lead for the first time in a Rasmussen survey released Nov. 27. A Des Moines Register poll shortly afterward confirmed Huckabee's lead, and -- with the exception of a few stray polls -- the former Baptist minister was ahead of the pack from the start of December until the caucuses on Jan. 3, 2008. Huckabee won with 34 percent of the vote to Romney's 25 percent.
This time around, Gingrich first took the lead in Iowa in a Rasmussen survey on Nov. 15. He's led every one of the seven polls released since then, and now leads Romney by 12 points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. No one else is gaining significant ground against Gingrich.
And who could? If Iowa Republicans were to move away from their two main choices of Gingrich and Romney, they would have to unite behind Ron Paul, who remains high in the polls but seems to have hit the ceiling of his support; or they could return to Michele Bachmann, who led the polls in July and early August; go back to Rick Perry, who led the polls in late August and September; or give Rick Santorum the boost he has never had.
Talk to various Republicans and you'll get a sense that each of the last three might happen. "I'm starting to see life for Perry again," says Vander Plaats. "Some people are saying they are rethinking their decision on him." Bachmann has also been trending upward in some recent polls. Santorum has enlisted some well-respected new supporters, and some Iowans see a late rise for him.
Recommended
Each could benefit from the hunger for what Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King calls a "full-spectrum conservative" in the race. Various candidates have been strong on taxes, or immigration, or foreign policy, King believes, but none has put forward a workable plan to reduce the crushing federal debt, which remains a top concern for many Republicans.
"No presidential candidate has yet identified the full scope of our current economic situation," King says. "All 'bold' or 'fiscally responsible' proposals only substantially cut spending in the out years, which leaves us with no sign of the political will to harness the spending juggernaut."
King's endorsement would mean a lot in the race. But so far he has held back, and at this late date it appears he will probably not endorse at all. Likewise, another top Iowa Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley, says he will most likely not endorse and, in fact, remains undecided.
"I have not chosen," Grassley says. "I've hung up on two pollsters." (Yes, pollsters call Grassley at his farm in New Hartford, Iowa, just like they call everybody else.)
It's always possible that something "dramatically fast and dramatically late" will happen to shake up the race. That's why Gingrich's opponents are hoping for some sort of Gingrich meltdown. But unless the former House speaker self-destructs, it seems that the race is what it is. Either Gingrich or Romney will win, or, if both fade, Ron Paul could take first.
For the moment at least, the Gingrich phenomenon continues. Vander Plaats was at a basketball game recently at Northwestern College in Orange City, Iowa, in the state's very conservative northwestern corner. "The people I sat around -- these are northwest Iowa staunch Christian conservatives -- said they were surprising themselves, but they were moving to Gingrich," he says.
They're not the only ones surprised. Barring some dramatic change, Gingrich's rise is the late-breaking development everybody was looking for -- and nobody expected.
(Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member