In announcing today that he was suspending his campaign, Herman Cain positioned himself and his supporters squarely against what he called “the media class,” which many of his supporters were eager to blame for the candidate’s decision. 
 
 "This is your fault,” a Cain supporter told POLITICO’s Juana Summers after the candidate announced he was suspending his campaign. 
 
 "Present company included or excluded, you guys know what you've been doing,” a volunteer in Iowa told a group of reporters, including CNN’s Chris Welch. 
 
 Cain’s own anti-media sentiments have been on view since POLITICO first broke the news of sexual harassment allegations on October 30. But now that those and subsequent reports have suspended the campaign, the candidate’s supporters are taking up the cause in earnest. 
 
 "You're supposed to have facts when you report something, and I just don't think that any media anywhere has taken facts and then fact-checked them before they reported them,” the Iowa volunteer, Patti Spencer Burdette, told Welch. “That's what I'm angry about. It's just taken a good man and his family down." 
 
 One Cain supporter stopped by the press table to tell Summers and other reporters, "Now you're going to have to find someone else to write dirt about." ||||| So Herman Cain is out; no surprise there. There is, I think, a moral to be drawn from his demise. Cain was a hit with Republican voters because of his relentless focus on the economy. He didn’t get personal in his attacks on the Obama administration, but focused on how to create jobs and spur economic growth. His 9-9-9 plan may or may not have been the best solution, but it was a creative and credible contribution to the debate. 
 
 The biggest problem Cain had was that when the conversation turned to foreign policy, it became apparent that he not only lacked experience, which is common among presidential contenders, but hadn’t devoted much thought to the issues. That hurt him, but he remained popular because he was a strong voice for conservative approaches to our economic troubles. 
 
 All of that changed when accusations of impropriety began to fly. Cain was diverted from the issues he had been pounding away on, to the extent that he was rendered ineffective. When was the last time you heard anyone talking about 9-9-9? Whether the accusations were true or not (and it is hard to believe that there was no fire anywhere in all that smoke), Cain’s effectiveness as a candidate was destroyed. 
 
 What happened to Herman Cain is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. They know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record, so they will do everything they can to distract the voters’ attention from those matters, which should be decisive, and instead turn the focus to the GOP candidate and his or her alleged foibles. If Republican voters allow that to happen by nominating a candidate with baggage that permits the Democrats to turn him into the next Herman Cain, it is all too likely that President Obama will be re-elected, with consequences that can hardly be overestimated. 
 
 UPDATE: Presumably those readers of the Village Voice who are not complete morons will notice that four of the five quotes that the Voice attributed to me are nowhere to be found in this post. I am not sure whether someone else said them or the Voice just made them up, but, in any event, I didn’t. More here: Village Voice: America’s Lamest News Site? ||||| Even as this primary season tests many of the traditional rules of presidential politics, Herman Cain’s political demise serves as a vivid reminder that the fundamental laws of campaign gravity still apply. 
 
 The contours of the playing field might have changed — the campaign is now being contested mostly on the debate stage, cable television and the internet – but the expectations of voters remain the same. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO 44 
 
 Cain, who exited the race Saturday over allegations of sexual impropriety, demonstrated that candidates still must have a grasp on the issues, possess some degree of political experience and retain a competent staff. 
 
 Antipathy toward Washington may be soaring, but outsider status isn’t sufficient by itself to overcome deeper flaws. 
 
 GOP primary voters are indicating that they’d prefer a insider who’s competent than someone from outside the establishment who may not be up to the task of taking on President Obama. 
 
 There’s a reason why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the favorites in the final weeks before voting begins, and Cain is returning home to Georgia. 
 
 Romney has twice been tested in statewide campaigns by an exacting Boston press corps and ran the presidential gauntlet four years ago. Gingrich first ran for Congress during the Ford administration — he lost twice before finally winning his seat — and has been subjected to arguably as much scrutiny as any other modern political figure who hadn’t previously sought the White House. Both candidates are deeply versed on the affairs of state and have confronted major political challenges that steeled them for this moment. 
 
 Of course, an out-of-the-blue sex scandal would be difficult for any candidate, rookie or canny veteran, to survive. But Cain’s inept handling of it, combined with his staff’s malpractice,, ensured his fate. 
 
 “The process has consistently worked in both parties,” said Steve Schmidt, who helmed John McCain’s campaign four years ago. “Nobody who is not prepared to be president of the United States has made it through this process. When you look at the field now, it has narrowed to two people who are unquestionably qualified to be president — and all the people who are likely to be on next season’s ‘Dancing with the Stars’ have fallen away.” 
 
 For all the talk about how much the tea party-infused Republican Party of 2011 wants a leader from beyond the political establishment, most Republican primary voters appear focused on only one objective in determining the nominee: who can beat Obama. 
 
 And there’s an important distinction between making a statement about party purity in a downballot contest and picking a president. 
 
 “In 2010, it was fun to be an anti-establishment Republican and make a point by rallying around unelectable candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, but the stakes are higher and therefore electability does play much more of a factor,” said a GOP operative whose current post prevents him from speaking on the record. “So while it is fun to flirt with a [Michele] Bachmann or Cain, voters are not going to send an unproven entity into the Obama wood-chipper.” ||||| In a campaign chock full of unbelievable storylines, none was more remarkable than the rise of Herman Cain. 
 
 
 
 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain bowed out of the 2012 presidential race on Saturday in Atlanta. (AP Photo/ Richard Shiro) 
 
 That Cain — on the strength of his speaking ability and the curb appeal of his “9-9-9” economic plan — spent more than a month as a leading candidate in the race for the Republican nomination provides a telling window into the mood of the GOP electorate on the verge of 2012. 
 
 That Cain collapsed in a heap of allegations of sexual impropriety and titanic levels of muddled messaging — all of which culminated in his decision to suspend his campaign Saturday — is proof that an unconventional approach to politics can only get you so far. 
 
 “To a base desperate to support change, a fresh face with exciting marketing sizzle but real problems handling policy substance ended up like most new network sitcoms: an interesting concept that gets great ratings early but is cancelled by midseason because the same thing happens over and over with no plot development, even while a dwindling viewership keeps rooting for the show to somehow make it to renewal,” explained Eric Ueland, a prominent Republican strategist. 
 
 Steve Schmidt, who managed Arizona Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential race, offered a far harsher assessment of the Cain moment. 
 
 “That Cain’s candidacy was taken seriously for longer than a nano-second in a time of genuine crisis for the country raises fundamental questions about the health of the political process and the Republican party,” Schmidt said. 
 
 At the heart of Cain’s attractiveness to Republican primary voters were two concepts: simplicity and unconventionality. 
 
 Cain’s much-discussed — by him — “9-9-9” plan was the essence of simplicity. Scrapping the current tax code, which is universally loathed by Republicans, and replacing it with a 9 percent corporate tax, 9 percent income tax and 9 percent national sales tax has inherent political appeal. 
 
 It’s easy. It seems to make sense. And for a party desperately looking for new ideas around which to rally, “9-9-9” seemed to be a perfect fit. 
 
 Cain’s “9-9-9” plan also reinforced the other key element of his campaign: his un­or­tho­dox approach to just about everything. 
 
 Cain proudly touted the fact that he was the only candidate in the race who had never held elected office before — though he had served in a decidedly D.C. job as head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s — and that he would bring the perspective of a businessman and an outsider to the process. He was “bold” he told Republican voters, willing to say and do things that his more cautious (read: political) opponents never would. (How true that wound up being.) 
 
 The Republican base, sick of politics-as-usual as practiced by both parties in Washington, loved Cain’s I-am-not-a-politician riff and were, for a time, willing to overlook his occasional flights of rhetorical fancy because, after all, he was touting himself as the unconventional candidate in the field. 
 
 “Herman Cain in many ways represented the same qualities that attracted voters to people like [2010 Delaware Senate candidate] Christine O’Donnell,” said Republican senior strategist Terry Nelson. “They thought he would shake things up, and that’s what they want.” 
 
 But then Cain blew up (in a good way). And that led to a blow up (in a very bad way). 
 
 The simplicity of “9-9-9” turned out to be over-simplification — watch Cain try to explain how his plan wouldn’t raise taxes in an interview on “Meet the Press” with David Gregory — and Cain’s unconventional approach to politics ensured that he had no ability (or willingness) to build a coordinated response against the charges of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair that were leveled at him once he became a top-tier candidate. 
 
 So, what does the race look like with Cain gone from it? 
 
 In truth, the contest had been moving on — and away — from Cain for the better part of the last month. “Whatever his departure means to the race that’s already happened, it happened a few days ago,” mused one GOP strategist. 
 
 The obvious beneficiary from Cain’s slow-motion collapse is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who rose rapidly as his fellow Georgian’s support cratered. 
 
 “Cain’s exit allows Newt the opportunity to coalesce the anti- [Mitt] Romney, conservative base in Iowa and South Carolina, endangering Romney’s path to the nomination,” theorized one adviser to another candidate in the Republican race. (We made a similar case earlier this week.) 
 
 It’s worth noting that the idea of Cain’s departure as a major windfall for Gingrich, while widespread, is not entirely born out by the numbers. A Pew poll conducted before Thanksgiving, for example, showed that Cain supporters split evenly between Romney and Gingrich when asked for their second choice. 
 
 “[Cain’s] absence mostly means Romney’s chances at top two out of Iowa are enhanced,” said one unaligned Republican operative. “And that matters due to perception of momentum coming into New Hampshire.” 
 
 There will also be a scramble among the remaining candidates to harvest the staff and activist talent that Cain had gathered. While Cain’s campaign was, largely, filled with little-known operatives, he did have some well-regarded backers — most notably Kathleen Shanahan, a former senior political aide to then Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. 
 
 But, Cain’s lasting legacy in the contest is almost certain to be his “9-9-9” plan — if not the specifics of it, the sentiment of simplicity behind it. 
 
 “Like or hate ‘9-9-9’, all the candidates now have seen the real and positive reaction you can elicit with a simple, clear, bold proposal that’s easy to understand and repeat,” explained Ueland. 
 
 Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to come out in favor of a flat tax was undoubtedly influenced by the success of Cain’s “9-9-9” plan. Ditto Romney’s focus on his support for cutting spending, capping federal spending and a balanced budget amendment. 
 
 Viewed at the highest possible altitude, what Cain’s candidacy proved was the power — and limits — of simplicity and unconventionality in the Republican contest. 
 
 “When he started, Herman Cain never had any thought that he could win,” explained one adviser to another candidate in the Republican presidential field who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “ He figured he might be able to sell some books and double his speaking fees. Then something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.”
– So, after a fleeting moment at the top of the polls, Herman Cain's run for the Oval Office is over. Now comes the political dissection, as analysts ask what his unconventional campaign meant: The root of Cain's popularity was his campaign's "simplicity and unconventionality," says Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. His tax plan was easy and "seemed to make sense," and reinforced his unique, off-beat approach. "The Republican base, sick of politics-as-usual as practiced by both parties in Washington, loved Cain’s I-am-not-a-politician riff," said Cillizza. Cain's relentless focus on the economy is what fueled his brief success, writes John Hinderaker at Power Line. His fall from grace because of personal improprieties is exactly what Democrats want to do with any Republican candidate because "they know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record." On the other hand, Jonathan Martin at Politico says that the lesson of Cain is that even the country's deep hatred of Washington is not enough for an outsider to win a party's nomination. "GOP primary voters are indicating that they’d prefer an insider who’s competent than someone from outside the establishment who may not be up to the task of taking on President Obama," writes Martin. As for Cain's supporters, they have a theory, too, about what derailed Cain's campaign—the media, of course. "This is your fault," shouted one supporter at a Politico journalist.