Republicans and the Hispanic Vote

Two articles getting some attention: Kim Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, "The GOP Turnout Myth," and Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, "Hispanics favor Dems but didn't decide election."

I don't think Hispanics are naturally conservative (as Charles Krauthammer argued recently, erroneously), although I do think that Republicans can pick up enough Hispanics to reduce the Democrat electoral advantage in key swing states. Strassel's essay points that out:

In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama's margin of victory there was 103,000.

This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won't equal Mr. Obama's magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.

And that, for the record, was the GOP's real 2012 turnout disaster. Elections are about the candidate and the message, yes, but also about the ground game. Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney's failures and the party's immigration platform—that's fair enough. But equally important has been the party's mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn't campaign in those communities, doesn't register voters there, doesn't knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president's.

Often missed in talk of the GOP's "demographics problem" is that it would take relatively modest minority-voter shifts toward Republicans to return the party to a dominating force. The GOP might see that as the enormous opportunity it is, rather than a problem. The key to winning turnout is having more people to turn out in the first place.

How Romney Lost

There are all kinds of reasons for Romney's defeat, and I'm sure most folks have their own theories (I don't think Romney ran an effective campaign, personally), but this report's fascinating, at WSJ, "How Race Slipped Away From Romney":

BOSTON—Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn't totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate's time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign's mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the "Bain way."

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney's vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan's fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney's finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign's state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

Keep in mind, while Romney was struggling, the Democrats were simultaneously running ads in those very swing states, hammering the GOP nominee as a greedy, rapacious capitalist downsizing jobs and destroying middle class prosperity. Places like Ohio were inundated with these attacks. The progressives lied ruthlessly. It was unrelenting, merciless, and literally evil in its single-minded focus on character assassination. Romney wasn't ready for it. I wrote about some of Romney's problems in September, but I had no idea about the money deficits.

Against Despair

From Jonah Goldberg, at National Review:

I’ll be blunt: I do not think Mitt Romney ran a good campaign. Don’t get me wrong, I think he worked his heart out as did many who worked for him. I think he made himself into the best candidate he could (which is different from saying he was a great candidate). But I also think that Romney’s theory of the contest was wrong. As I wrote at the time, the Republican convention was a mess. I think Romney strategist Stu Stevens’s contempt for ideas — never mind conservative ideas — was absurd. I think the failure of the Romney campaign to offer a compelling explanation of any kind (at least until the second debate) for how it wasn’t a third Bush term was fatal (as I discussed here and elsewhere). Politics is about persuasion. And persuasion requires making serious arguments. Stevens, by all accounts, has contempt for serious arguments.

None of this means that all of the talk about changing demographics and long-term structural challenges for the GOP is without merit. I have strong views about all of that as well.

In fact, I have a different view from some about the coming wave of recriminations: I welcome it. I don’t know that things need to be vicious or personal, but they do need to be honest. And honesty requires we say things that may feel personal to our friends. This is one of the great and abiding strengths of the conservative movement and the thing I love about it most. Contrary to the conventional wisdom among liberals, conservatives are actually far more willing to examine their dogma and their first principles than liberals or “centrists” are. This has been the source of conservatism’s lasting strength.

It’s going to take a while to sort through this mess...

I like that part about Mitt's seriously flawed campaign.

I said so much in September, although Mitt's debate performances were excellent (even the third debate, which Bill O'Reilly pegged as weak and costing Romney the election, which is absurd).

But read Goldberg's piece in full, at the link.

Re-Election Reactions

As I said before, losing's not fun. Although it's not like folks were blindsided or anything.

Books will be written, but in the end Mitt Romney pulled up close with the president and made it the most exciting presidential election campaign in my lifetime. He would have made a great president, but this wasn't his moment. The loss for the country is enormous, but seasons change.

I imagine I'll be doing a lot of analysis over the next few weeks, but in the meantime there's some interesting commentary going up even before everything's settled back down.

Michelle Malkin bucks up the troops, "Election 2012: Obama gets his “revenge,” but conservatives must stand tall."

Also from William Jacobson, "Dunkirk."

And at Instapundit, and a reader writes:

If Obama is reelected, good hardworking people should give up and go Galt. The tipping point is the 2012 election. Will the makers finally succumb to the takers?...

Keep reading.

I'll have more later...

Romney Supporters Shocked

Losing's not only hard, it's a freakin' bummer.

See all the photos at London's Daily Mail, "Heads hang in dead silence at Romney headquarters in Boston as President Obama is projected to win reelection."

Romney's Concession Speech

CNN has the transcript, via Memeorandum.

Election Night Updates

Polls in Virginia are closing in about 15 minutes.


I haven't really thought much about it, but I'll start out with this post as a sticky up top and see how it goes.

There are election night posts at AoSHQ, "OFFICIAL AOSHQDD ELECTION NIGHT RETURNS," at Legal Insurrection, "Election Night 2012 — Live," and at The Other McCain, "ELECTION DAY UPDATES."

Plus check Instapundit as well.

4:07pm Pacific:

Early exit poll estimates in Virginia show presidential race 49-49%
— Steve Brusk (@stevebruskCNN) November 7, 2012

4:23pm Pacific: At Fox News, "Virginia too close to call; Romney wins Indiana and Kentucky, Obama takes Vermont."

4:35pm Pacific: CNN reported exit polls showing Obama up 51-48 in Ohio.

4:44pm Pacific: Robert Stacy McCain's not happy with CNN's South Carolina projection as too close to call:

John King is a goddamned dishonest Democrat propagandist. He should be collecting a paycheck from the DNC, not @cnn
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 7, 2012

5:07pm Pacific: Polls in a bunch of states just closed. I'll have news reports posted on those in a bit. Florida and Pennsylvania are too close to call but exit data shows an Obama edge. JPod responds to these on Twitter:

Remember exit polls and early exits classically oversample Democrats. That's why you can't believe them. They don't swing both ways.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) November 6, 2012

5:13pm Pacific: From earlier, at AoSHQ, "GOP Sources: We're Looking Good In CO, IA, NH, and WI":

Assuming Romney wins Florida, NC, and Virginia, then Wisconsin, Colorado, and either Iowa or New Hampshire wins it for him.

I think Team Obama is trying to put out word that Virginia is shaky for Romney. I think they're trying to demoralize us. I don't believe it.

Still too close to call in Florida and Virginia, so we'll see.

5:55pm Pacific: Romney rolling up South, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. But no word yet on Florida. And of course we're waiting for Ohio and Virginia as well.

The Lonely Conservative is blogging, "Election Results Open Thread," and at Twitchy, "Moving pics of Romney’s final campaign flight; Visibly moved by supporters, talks to media on plane."

6:16pm Pacific: Im in the bathroom just now and I hear my wife scream: "Florida just flipped with Romney ahead!" Susan Candiotti has that:

CNN reports: with 76% of Florida's vote in, the vote is split 50/50 Obama/ Romney! #cnnelections
— susan candiotti cnn(@susancandiotti) November 7, 2012

6:20pm Pacific: Various sources call Pennsylvania for Obama.

6:41pm Pacific: Theo Spark provides an important election reminder:

Yeah, the CPUSA endorsed him again this year: "... re-electing Obama is absolutely essential."

7:12pm Pacific: CNN projects a New Hampshire win for Obama. And Florida remains within hundreds of votes either way. The path for the GOP ticket is narrowing.

Perhaps the editors of the Wall Street Journal saw the way things were shaking before going to press, but here's this leader, "The Republic Will Survive":

As our early editions went to press Tuesday evening we had no idea who'd win the Presidential race. But we'll venture the prediction that the Republic will somehow survive the outcome. Even if Barack Obama wins a second term.

These columns have made no secret of our disappointments—we're writing with the mute button on—with this Administration. Nor have we stinted on our criticism of Mitt Romney, both on tactics and policy. Sadly for us, Ronald Reagan wasn't on the ballot Tuesday. Sadly for some of our friends, Bill Clinton wasn't on it either, though sometimes you could have been fooled.

To choose between imperfect candidates representing unwieldy coalitions has been the American way since America's first contested election, the squeaker of 1796. If you think the stakes in 2012 are great, remember that Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republicans accused John Adams of being a closet monarchist, while Adams's Federalists treated their opponents as closet Jacobins. Adams won that race, 71 electoral votes to 68, only to lose to Jefferson four years later. Who was it who said voting is the best revenge? So it has gone ever since. The U.S. has survived countless mediocrities in the White House, several placeholders, at least two scoundrels and some real unmitigated disasters. In that last category, we'd name James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, with Woodrow Wilson getting an honorable mention. As for President Obama, we'll resist historicizing until we know he's out of the White House. Perspective is usually the best teacher.

That's not to say we're indifferent to what lies ahead these next four years. Elections have consequences. At issue in this one is whether Mr. Obama's attempt to govern the U.S. from the left winds up being a parenthesis in U.S. history, or a point of departure. If the former, we have a chance to return swiftly to real growth in the U.S. economy. If the latter, we will have to wrestle with the negative consequences for many years.

Well, I think I said it earlier, but the country will take a long time to dig itself out from the destruction of the Obama years, and eight years in office will practically bury American exceptionalism. But as the editors note, the republic will survive. Read the rest at the link.

7:35pm Pacific: It ain't over 'till it's over, but folks are getting glum on Twitter:

@michellemalkin I guess they've chosen "die" in New Hampshire.
— Nick Holmes (@Brensdad_1974) November 7, 2012

7:39pm Pacific: As I was saying:

Dear A$$hole Republican leaders, you suck.You suck like a top of the line Dyson vacuum cleaner. and @reince eff buddy, eff off
— Em (@lamblock) November 7, 2012

8:36pm: This thread's done. I've got a new entry up: "Kenyan Witch Doctor Calls It Correctly: Barack Obama Re-Elected President."

#RomneyRyan Will Protect and Restore 'Judeo-Christian Values'

I met Mitt Romney in March 2010.

I had a feeling he'd wind up as the 2012 GOP nominee, so I decided to attend that book signing. He's a genuinely nice and decent fellow. He's "corny" in an all-American way, to such an extent that upwards of 30,000 people have been thronging events to hear him speak. There's a longing for the values that Romney represents, after almost four-years of progressive attacks on America's basic values and international standing. Indeed, I wish Paul Ryan had spoken out like this earlier in the campaign, "Ryan Says Obama Policies Threaten 'Judeo-Christian' Values":

CASTLE ROCK, Colo. — Representative Paul D. Ryan accused President Obama on Sunday of taking the country down a path that compromised Judeo-Christian values and the traditions of Western civilization.

The remarks came in a conference call with evangelical Christians, sandwiched between public rallies in which he often spoke of the Romney-Ryan ticket’s promise to bridge partisan divides if elected.

Mr. Ryan’s campaign plane touched down in Colorado late on Sunday, his fourth state in a hectic day of rallies meant to maximize turnout on Election Day, and he spoke by phone to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a group founded by the conservative Christian strategist Ralph Reed.

“It’s a dangerous path,” Mr. Ryan said, describing Mr. Obama’s policies. “It’s a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty and compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place.”’

The election's too close to call. For all my bluster and hype, I honestly have no idea who's going to win. As I've been saying for a long time, I think Ohio will be decisive, and if Romney puts both Florida and the Buckeye State in his column I expect it will be over. But listening to other analysts there's a considerable sense that Romney's widened the map and a number of states are within serious reach of a GOP pickup. Pennsylvania would be awesome (Romney could call it a night after that). But Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin all look like strong potential pickups. There's a theory floating around that this is an "undertow election," that the expected huge grassroots turnout and massive conservative enthusiasm will upend all the establishment polling prognostications and sweep the Republican ticket to victory. I think it's a plausible --- even likely --- theory and that's why I feel so good as this post is being scheduled to go live early morning Tuesday. I'll be at the college until around 3:00pm Pacific. Then I'll head out to vote and pick up my young son at his after-school program. Then I'll be home, sometime before 5:00pm if there's no delay at the local polling station, and I'll be in front of the television trolling the cable channels for reports. And I'll be on Twitter for instant reactions to the night's developments. I'll of course be blogging, so check in here for periodic updates throughout the night.

In any case, check Instapundit and The Other McCain for updates. And the Wall Street Journal's website features free access all day, so there'll be lots of election reporting over there as well.

Until tonight!

Savannah Guthrie: Obama's Got Nuthin'

Man, Guthrie's coming on here like a gut punch to the collective MSNBC solar plexus.

Amazing.

Also at Mediaite, "Savannah Guthrie: Hurricane Sandy Handed To Obama ‘From Above’ to Let Him Appeal to Independents."

To Hell With Nate Silver!

That's Robert Stacy McCain, actually: "OHIO: IT’S MITT’S TO WIN":

Eight days into this Ohio road trip, I’m sick of all these experts who issue their pronouncements from the comfort of their living rooms without ever having set foot in a swing state, pundits whose idea of a “road trip” is blogging from their neighborhood Starbucks.

To hell with Nate Silver, and to hell with all the rest of them, these stationary buddhas of political prognostication, journalistic intellectuals who consider mere reporting to be beneath their dignity. You won’t find any graduates of the Kennedy School of Government sleeping on the floors of motel rooms and eating crappy breakfast food from the nearest convenience store. But I digress .

Read it all at the link. Plus, "Wild-Ass Scenarios? Chill."

I'm not for the "wild-ass" prediction scenarios either, although it's grim reaper time for Nate Silver if Obama fails to meet the "wild-ass" 538 "math-based" projections. The wonder boy's got Obama pegged at an 87 percent chance of wining? Sheesh. Talk about progressive dreams. The left is going to be all shot to hell if Romney wins.

And don't miss Colby Cosh at Macleans, "Tarnished Silver: Colby Cosh assesses the new king of stats." (The bottom line: Silver's lucky.)

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Romney's Internal Polling Shows GOP Up in Ohio, Tied in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

* "Don't Be Surprised When Obama Loses."

* "Nate Silver Bets $2,000 on Obama's Reelection, Provokes Public Editor's Ire."

* "Nate Silver Fast on His Way to One-Term Celebrity."

* "Akron Beacon Poll Finds Ohio Dead Heat at 49-49 — Presidential Race Tighter Than Obama's A**hole in a Prison Shower."

* "Nate Silver: Voice of the New Castrati."

* "If Bias Doesn't Matter Why Would Bill Maher Host Nate Silver on 'Real Time'?"

* "Oh My! Romney Back Up to 51 Percent in Gallup's Daily Tracking — Nate Silver Hardest Hit!"

* "'Grand Swami' Nate Silver Boosts O's Chances to 71.0% in Electoral College!"

* "Obama Crashing in Ohio; or, For the Love of Mercy, Leave Nate Silver Alone!"

* "Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!"

* "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

Check back tonight for the final 2012 Nate Silver polling update!

Decision Day in America

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama and Romney Battle Down to Wire":

After more than one million television ads, countless appearances and three contentious debates, the 2012 presidential election remained on a knife's edge with both candidates seeking to shore up support in states crucial to their chances Tuesday.

President Barack Obama cheered on backers in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa on Monday, evidence that his campaign aimed to build a firewall in the Midwest to try to block his Republican rival. He plans to await the election returns at his base in Chicago.

Mitt Romney swooped through four battleground states—Virginia, Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire—where the Republican needs to do well to secure a win. His campaign organized two additional stops on Election Day, at campaign offices in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Mr. Romney is hedging his bets with a last-minute push in Pennsylvania before he returns to Boston to monitor the returns.

National polls are essentially tied while polls in some battleground states showed Mr. Obama with narrow leads. Both campaigns said their internal data show their candidate would win.

Voters are set to determine whether $6 billion in advertising and other campaign spending would bring a new era to Washington—with a Republican White House and administration—or extend the status quo of a Democratic White House and split Congress.

The result will answer some questions that have lingered since Mr. Obama's historic 2008 victory. The president was sent to the White House by a coalition comprising segments of the electorate—African-Americans, Hispanics and young voters—as well as women. The president's aides spent much of the past four years working to keep that group together, one that if it remains viable could be a lasting strength for Democrats.

With the margin of victory for the winner expected to be narrow, a likely outcome is a political system as split as the country. It isn't clear either party would be positioned to emerge Wednesday with a clear mandate for tackling some the nation's biggest problems—including the looming tax increases and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

The tightness of the race sparked speculation about the possibility of unusual outcomes, such as an Electoral College tie or the winner failing to capture a majority of the popular vote.

Polling Conservative Bloggers on the 2012 Election

John Hawkins has a survey, at Right Wing News:

Right Wing News polled more than 230 right-of-center bloggers on who they think is going to win tomorrow and whom they plan to vote for in the election. The following 68 bloggers responded....

Check the link for the results.

Romney's Internal Polling Shows GOP Up in Ohio, Tied in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

From Toby Harnden, at London's Daily Mail, "Exclusive: Romney UP one point in Ohio and TIED in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to his campaign's internal polling":

Mitt Romney is ahead by a single percentage point in Ohio - the swing state that many believe could decide the election, according to internal polling data provided to MailOnline by a Republican party source.

Internal campaign polling completed last night by campaign pollster Neil Newhouse has Romney three points up in New Hampshire, two points up in Iowa and dead level in Wisconsin and - most startlingly - Pennsylvania.

If the Romney campaign's internal numbers are correct - and nearly all independent pollsters have come up with a picture much more favourable for Obama - then the former Massachusetts governor will almost certainly be elected 45th U.S. President.

Well, don't get cocky, kid.

RELATED: At Instapundit, "NATE SILVER ALSO GAVE SHARRON ANGLE A 75 PERCENT CHANCE OF WINNING IN 2010..."

Hey, there's someone who really ought not get cocky.

I'll have more on the wonder boy suicide watch later.

Sheesh.

CBS Covered for Obama's Benghazi Clusterf-k

Here's a November surprise for you that's no surprise at all.

At Legal Insurrection, "CBS Rathered you not see this video of Obama refusing to call Benghazi terrorism," and Lonely Conservative, "Video: On Spetember 12 President Obama Refused To Call Benghazi Attack a Terrorist Attack."

And AoSHQ has the epic headline, "Buried Bombshell: CBS Video Shows Obama Refusing to Call Benghazi A Terrorist Attack...On September 12th."

Naturally, Bret Baier at Fox News is not pleased, "What President Obama really said in that ‘60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi":

Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline. In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama -- the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?" Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: "When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say."

Romney pounced, saying, "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people."

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror... And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief."

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning ...

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration. OBAMA: Please proceed.

ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) --

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.) CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: They did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and -- and to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the -- your -- your secretary or --

Obama -- who had clearly won the moment (largely thanks to Candy Crowley) -- clearly wanted to move on from that victorious moment -- and quickly...

Continue reading.

Obama may win tomorrow, but Benghazi-gate's going to dog a second term if he does.

George Will Predicts Mitt Romney Victory

At Instapundit, "GEORGE WILL PREDICTS ROMNEY BLOWOUT."

Here's the whole segment, from yesterday's "This Week." Ronald Brownstein, the only other panelist worth paying attention to, has Obama eking out narrow win, taking Ohio et al., where Romney supposedly hasn't been able to "break though." I think Romney's going to take Ohio, however, and if so, under Brownstein's projection the president would lose.

Mitt Romney Speech at Morrisville

As promised, here's a clip from Romney's speech today in Pennsylvania:

And see, "Tens of Thousands Turn Out for Romney Rally in Morrisville, Pennsylvania" and "Massive Turnout for Romney Rally in Philadelphia!"

BONUS: "New Keystone State Poll: Presidential Race Locked Up at 47 Percent."

Tens of Thousands Turn Out for Romney Rally in Morrisville, Pennsylvania

I'll get some video up in a bit, but some great photos are available now.

At Lonely Conservative, "Massive Crowd Turns Out For Romney In Bucks County, PA," and Twitchy, "Amazing photos: ‘Unreal’ crowd packs Romney rally in Bucks County, Pa."

More at Gateway Pundit, "28,000 SUPPORTERS Turn Out in the Cold to See Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania!"

Deadlocked

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama and Romney Deadlocked, Poll Shows."

Obama's up by one point 48-47.

Pew has a little larger lead for Obama, 50-47, so Democrats can cling to their last breath of salvation with that survey.

But then here comes USA Today/Gallup, "Final Swing States Poll: Fired-up voters split, 48%-48%."

The swing states are going to push Romney over the top. He's got the momentum. He just finished speaking in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. He looked so sure and confident, and happy. I'll update with more from the Keystone State when some clips become available.

Columbus Dispatch Poll: Ohio's a Toss-Up

More news on the Ohio battleground, "Obama has edge, but high GOP turnout could turn Ohio to Romney."

Obama's up by two here, but the poll oversamples Democrats (585D vs. 537R). Basically, adjusting for an accurate partisan breakdown we'd see Romney up by two, and then factor in the enthusiasm gap and Ohio goes into the GOP column.

And here's Michael Barone, who spoke with Megyn Kelly earlier:

And at Hot Air, "Michael Barone’s prediction: Romney 315, Obama 223."

Massive Turnout for Romney Rally in Philadelphia!

From Seersucker Erik on Twitter:

PREVIOUSLY: "New Keystone State Poll: Presidential Race Locked Up at 47 Percent."