Whatever the Outcome, Election Will Leave Half the Nation Alienated

Yes, but if Romney wins progressives have again vowed riots in the streets.

Be that as it may, here's Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal:

CANTON, Ohio–The first words from Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan when she addressed the huge crowd braving a damp chill for a Mitt Romney rally here last Friday night might have sounded more natural coming from a pulpit than from a campaign podium.

“God is pretty good, isn’t he?” Hagan called out to encouraging applause from the virtually all-white audience of nearly 10,000 sprawled across a high school baseball field. A few moments later, she added, “I am not looking for applause. Nor am I looking for a handout.” With those two pointed remarks, Hagan briskly encouraged her audience to see itself as a community whose shared values are under siege from others—unnamed, but not difficult to picture—who supposedly don’t share them. Earlier that afternoon, about 100 people gathered for an early-vote rally at the Friendly Inn Settlement House, a community center that provides family services to residents of the surrounding Carver Park public-housing project in Cleveland. In this room, almost everyone was African-American—and the sense of siege was powerful here, too.

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, actor Jesse Williams, and local elected officials portrayed the election between Romney and President Obama as a critical turning point, particularly for the black community. Speakers denounced Romney’s secretly recorded comments about the “47 percent” as a signal of contempt for the people in the room. “How do you say you want to be president ... when you have disdain for 47 percent of the population?” asked fiery Democratic state Sen. Nina Turner. Anyone touring Ohio, the epicenter of Campaign 2012, is confronted not only with the visceral passion, but the cavernous divisions that this election has provoked. Here, and in all likelihood nationally, Obama and Romney are assembling coalitions that are inimical in their demography and priorities yet almost equal in size. Uniting Americans behind any common purpose after an election that appears certain to divide them that deeply and closely looms as a daunting, perhaps insurmountable, challenge for whichever man wins next week.

More at the link.

And recall that Brownstein's knows whereof he speaks. He's the author of The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America, a very perceptive --- and prescient --- analysis of America's political polarization.

Wildlife Populations in the U.S. Have Experienced an Astonishing Resurgence

At WSJ, "America Gone Wild":

This year, Princeton, N.J., has hired sharpshooters to cull 250 deer from the town's herd of 550 over the winter. The cost: $58,700. Columbia, S.C., is spending $1 million to rid its drainage systems of beavers and their dams. The 2009 "miracle on the Hudson," when US Airways flight 1549 had to make an emergency landing after its engines ingested Canada geese, saved 155 passengers and crew, but the $60 million A320 Airbus was a complete loss. In the U.S., the total cost of wildlife damage to crops, landscaping and infrastructure now exceeds $28 billion a year ($1.5 billion from deer-vehicle crashes alone), according to Michael Conover of Utah State University, who monitors conflicts between people and wildlife.

Those conflicts often pit neighbor against neighbor. After a small dog in Wheaton, Ill., was mauled by a coyote and had to be euthanized, officials hired a nuisance wildlife mitigation company. Its operator killed four coyotes and got voice-mail death threats. A brick was tossed through a city official's window, city-council members were peppered with threatening emails and letters, and the FBI was called in. After Princeton began culling deer 12 years ago, someone splattered the mayor's car with deer innards.

Welcome to the nature wars, in which Americans fight each other over too much of a good thing—expanding wildlife populations produced by our conservation and environmental successes. We now routinely encounter wild birds and animals that our parents and grandparents rarely saw. As their numbers have grown, wild creatures have spread far beyond their historic ranges into new habitats, including ours. It is very likely that in the eastern United States today more people live in closer proximity to more wildlife than anywhere on Earth at any time in history.

In a world full of eco-woes like species extinctions, this should be wonderful news—unless, perhaps, you are one of more than 4,000 drivers who will hit a deer today, or your child's soccer field is carpeted with goose droppings, or feral cats have turned your bird feeder into a fast-food outlet, or wild turkeys have eaten your newly planted seed corn, or beavers have flooded your driveway, or bears are looting your trash cans. And that's just the beginning.

More at the link.

There was a coyote outside on the sidewalk next to our parking lot as I was loading my kid up for school last week. We see them running through our neighborhood all time. I guess they scrounge around for food, but they're absolutely fearless of humans. They might run away when approached, but they know that people are not going to come after them with a shotgun. They're all around, the nasty little suckers. I'd hate for a child to be attacked by one of them, and some mothers over at my kid's school are frightened. Nature's right up in your face sometimes. Weird. I'm just glad it's not bears!

Kate Upton Vogue Italia

Via Theo Spark.

Forty-Eight Fit and Fabulous Women

In shape and smokin'!

See The Chive, "These gorgeous girls didn’t get this fit by accident (48 Photos)."

HAT TIP: Linkiest.

Las Vegas Review-Journal's Blistering Attack on Barack Obama

I don't read the Review Journal, and I don't link it --- this is the paper that sponsored Righthaven's copyright trolling. But since the president's probably got Nevada wrapped up, it's a particular interesting commentary when the state's largest paper just hammers this clusterf-k administration.

Twitchy has it, with links, "Brutal: Las Vegas Review-Journal slams Obama over ‘Benghazi blunder’."

Oh My! #RomneyRyan at Red Rocks

Here's the amazing new clip from Team Romney, "Red Rocks":

There's just no comparable energy like this on the left. Our bankrupt president is exhorting his last bitter redistributionist followers to take out their "revenge" against Republicans. But just look at the conservative side, so happy and upbeat. People love the GOP ticket as they love this country. It's a genuine patriotic outpouring. And this has been happening all over the country, as we've seen with recent coverage from Florida and Ohio. It's simply a transcendent phenomenon, and I mean "transcendent" only in the sense of transcending what most people have been hearing from the mainstream press. Unless you're reading blogs or following the campaign closely online, you won't get this overwhelming evidence of surging support for #RomneyRyan. The mainstream press is dishonestly downplaying it.

More from John Hinderaker at Power Line, "THE ENTHUSIASM IS ALL GOP, RED ROCKS EDITION." 

VIDEO c/o ReallyIvy on Twitter.

Romney Momentum in Pennsylvania

Elizabeth Price Foley has this, at Instapundit, "BIG TIME MITTMENTUM: SUSQUEHANNA POLL SHOWS ROMNEY UP BY 4 IN PENNSYLVANIA: Whoa."

One small problem is that the survey's two weeks old. Susquehanna's expected to have a new poll out in the morning, and boy, the anticipation couldn't be higher. The New York Times had this yesterday: "In Shift, Romney Campaign Approaches Pennsylvania With A New Urgency." And Dick Morris discussed the Pennsylvania polls on Sean Hannity's last week. And here's this, just in from the Allentown Morning Call, "Thousands greet Paul Ryan near Harrisburg":

MIDDLETOWN, Dauphin County —— When Mitt Romney suggested several weeks ago that he would win Pennsylvania, the challenge seemed almost insurmountable.

But when Paul Ryan asked a raucous Pennsylvania crowd of GOP faithful Saturday afternoon if they were ready to help the Republican ticket win the state, he was serious about the prospects.

"It feels really good to be standing in here with Pennsylvania today," the Republican vice presidential candidate said.

Throughout Ryan's 30-minute remarks inside a Harrisburg International Airport hangar, the crowd was deafening, at times chanting, "Three more days, Three more days."

A month ago, with President Barack Obama holding a 7- to 10-point lead over Romney in several Pennsylvania polls, the GOP likely did not expect to be having huge political rallies here with less than 72 hours until Election Day.

For most of the year, Pennsylvania was widely considered a sure thing for the Democrats. But in recent days, the Republicans have launched a concerted effort to win its 20 electoral votes. Democrats say the Republicans are looking to make up for shortcomings in other key states, but Republicans insist they see an opening in Pennsylvania.

Ryan's campaign stop touched off a whirlwind three days of political activity in Pennsylvania. Romney will headline a rally in Bucks County on Sunday. And former President Bill Clinton will hold three events across Pennsylvania on Monday to make the closing pitch for Obama.

When Romney was last in the state in September for a Philadelphia fundraiser and a rally in the suburbs, he said he'd win Pennsylvania. At that time, neither campaign and no super PAC was airing ads on Pennsylvania television. And Obama had a comfortable lead in the polls.

In the last week, both campaigns bought air time, as did a handful of GOP super PACs. And the most recent public poll showed Obama's lead in the state had narrowed to 4 points.

Well, the GOP ticket's taking it to Obama in the Keystone State. It frankly doesn't look nearly as close as Ohio, but Team Romney's got information that I don't --- internal polling, especially --- so I'll just hang onto my seat like everyone else. Twenty electors is a huge prize, and a win in Pennsylvania would basically throw the map wide open for the GOP ticket. Penn and Ohio for Romney and I'd have to agree with Price Foley: kiss it goodbye for the Democrats. I'll have more on this later...

MORE: I have to add this quotation from the Times' piece, since it's so out of place for a political report at the newspaper:

Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election for the last 20 years. Independent pollsters have called it the Republicans’ white whale. Indeed, polls show Mr. Obama ahead, albeit by a shrinking margin. And his senior political strategist, David Axelrod, even joked this week that he would shave off his mustache of 40 years if they lose here.

But there is a tangible sense — seen in Romney yard signs on the expansive lawns of homes in the well-heeled suburbs, and heard in the excited voices of Republican mothers who make phone calls to voters in their spare time — that the race is tilting toward Mr. Romney.

That's the enthusiasm gap, and it could be decisive in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

American Crossroads: 'We Can't Afford Another Four Years'

This clip's been running on CNN throughout the day. Very effective ad. Serious and to the point, with a regular lady who just doesn't think the president's policies are working.

Obama Campaign Comes to This: 'Voting's the best revenge...'

I wish this ad could run on every television, in every living room, in every household in the nation.

Voting isn't "revenge." Voting is popular participation in the decision-making process in America. If you're not happy with the current political leadership you have a chance to change it. It's not taking "revenge." It's exercising the franchise to sustain and improve democratic governance. This president sees voting as a way to punish those who oppose him. He's truly lost the moral fitness to serve. He's an embarrassment to the office of POTUS.

Thank goodness change is coming, at last.

Video c/o Linkmaster Smith:

And at Twitchy, "The choice is clear: Revenge or love of country?," and, "Campaign meltdown: Creepy Jim Messina slams Romney for message of ‘revenge’."

BONUS: From Byron York, "Obama campaign struggles to explain ‘revenge’ remark." (At Memeorandum.)

Kelly Brook Debuts in 'Raunchy' London Burlesque Show 'Forever Crazy'

Hey, she's still got it, so what the heck?

Might as well make the most of it while still looking gorgeous.

At London's Daily Mail, "Crazy, sexy, rude! Kelly Brook makes her very raunchy debut in burlesque show Forever Crazy."

West Chester, Ohio: Mitt Romney 'All Star' Rally

At The Other Mccain, "SCENES FROM OHIO ‘ALL-STAR’ RALLY."

PREVIOUSLY: "'All the cars with Romney bumper stickers have been keyed...'", and "Giuliani Calls on Obama to Resign (VIDEO)."

Giuliani Calls on Obama to Resign (VIDEO)

Via Buzzfeed (at Memeorandum).

And remember Robert Stacy McCain's comments, from last night: "Rudy Giuliani’s speech was off the hook — the best takedown of the Obama administration I’ve heard this entire cycle, bar none..." 

Watch it:

'All the cars with Romney bumper stickers have been keyed...'

The 2008 presidential candidate who promised to unite the nation if elected has instead, upon governing, driven the nation to a second civil war. The frontline state in that conflict is Ohio. Folks there are more divided than they can ever remember, and Ohio boasts the reputation of being the national decider in presidential elections.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Ohioans talk politics at their own risk":

CINCINNATI — Johanson Perez, a 29-year-old night baker at Panera Bread who is not a fan of President Obama, had a "70-comment fight" on Facebook with a friend over Donald Trump's $5-million offer for the president's school and passport records.

"I'm sure we won't be as close after the election as we were before," said Perez, who'd stopped for lunch at Price Hill Chili, a neighborhood institution on the city's west side. "It's almost like he's in a cult."

At a nearby table, political independent Greg Littel, 20, a University of Cincinnati student who favors Obama, said he was dismayed by vandalism in his liberal neighborhood.

"The political conversations have been more hostile and people have been taking that physically out on each other," Littel said. "All the cars with Romney bumper stickers have been keyed."

Over a sandwich at the bar, Ed Miller, 79, a Republican real estate agent and former minor league shortstop, said one of his oldest friends, an Obama supporter, stopped speaking to him recently. Miller had just given the man's grandson an expensive basketball signed by University of Kentucky coach John Calipari.

"I played ball with this guy!" Miller said. "How can you be so uniformed, so ignorant, about what's going on? If Obama gets in here for four more years, our country is gone. I mean flat-out gone."

Continue reading.

And see Christi Parsons and Maeve Reston, "Rhetoric soars as Obama, Romney start closing arguments."

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers!

No Hurricane Bounce for 'Bronco Bamma'

Folks are getting tired of that mofo.

At Lonely Conservative, "Looks Like #Sandy Won’t Help Obama After All."

And at Instapundit, "MICHAEL RAMIREZ: Oceans of Red Ink."

PREVIOUSLY: "Staten Island Angry Over Delayed Storm Response."

Staten Island Angry Over Delayed Storm Response

At Time, "The Island That New York City Forgot:

The headline of Thursday’s Staten Island Advance screamed in bold “14 DEAD SO FAR — HOMES RAVAGED, LIVES RUINED.” But many people here feel no one is listening to their pleas for help or coming for support. Only after one horrific tale emerged did the rest of the city and country pay attention to Staten Island. That event took place in one of the most devastated areas on the island, along Father Capodanno Boulevard. There, a young mother named Glenda Moore tried to reach a shelter and lost her two sons, Brandon, 2, and Connor, 4, after their car stalled in the suddenly rising floodwaters and they tried to escape.

No FEMA response. President "I" Candy had to fly out to Las Vegas for more important business.

But RTWT.

And at the New York Post, "Flood of tears: Bodies of SI boys found after being swept away by Sandy."

ADDED: At the New York Times, "Staten Island Was Tragic Epicenter of Storm’s Casualties" (via Memeorandum).

Michael Barone: 'Just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008...'

Michael Barone predicts a Mitt Romney win on Tuesday, "Campaign 2012 Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily." He comments on some key states in the Electoral College (via Memeorandum):

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

PHOTO CREDIT: Robert Stacy McCain, "WEST CHESTER, OHIO: MASSIVE CROWD FOR ROMNEY-RYAN RALLY":

I’ll have more photos later, but right now I just want to tell you how awesome tonight’s rally was. Rudy Giuliani’s speech was off the hook — the best takedown of the Obama administration I’ve heard this entire cycle, bar none. What Rudy said about Benghazi was particularly brutal.

Read it all at the link.

Robert has some harsh words --- three harsh words --- for AP reporter Steve Peoples.

Progressives Give Aid and Comfort to Obama's Benghazi Cover Up

I'm not sure who this guy Hayes Brown thinks he's fooling, but it's Think Progress, so clearly he doesn't have the interests of decent Americans in mind. Folks can read it all at the link, a stupid and corrupt cherry-picking of yesterday's news on the CIA in Benghazi, "New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks." (At Memeorandum.)

Frankly, yesterday's reports only raise more questions about the administration's actions on September 11. Jennifer Griffin has a new report out this morning, "Sources, emails point to communication breakdown in Obama administration during Libya attack." And there's video of Griffin's comments this morning here.

Progressives are using the latest news to discredit allegations that the White House didn't respond to requests for assistance. We still don't have enough information to know for sure exactly what requests were honored and by who. The president himself claimed he immediately issued orders that all U.S. personnel be protected, but the White House refuses to answer direct questions about what the orders entailed. Moreover, the latest reports again raise questions of why the White House insisted for weeks that the consulate came under attack "spontaneously." This was not an errant comment but a weeks-long campaign by the administration to deflect attention away from the Oval Office. Ed Morrissey has more on that, "Fox News: Benghazi consulate warned 3 hours before attack of militia gathering arms." And see especially Guy Benson, "Report: Benghazi Consulate Warned of Imminent Terrorist Attack Three Hours Before Raid":

So not only did the administration know within 24 hours that this had been an act of terrorism, they knew within four hours which specific Islamist group was responsible for the raid. (Remember, those August cables mentioned at least ten active jihadist militias in the city). The US staff in Benghazi sent explicit warnings about a lack of security at the consulate in August, as requests for reinforcements were being routinely denied. They also fired off urgent cables mere hours before the assault began, informing Washington that a terrorist attack had been set into motion. Why do these details matter? Because the White House -- the president, the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador -- continued to insist for days that this 9/11 terrorist attack was connected to (non-existent) spontaneous protests over an obscure online video. Clinton even denounced the video while standing next to the caskets of the fallen upon their return. This was a completely false storyline, pushed for reasons that remain unclear -- although I think the motives are becoming more readily apparent by the day. The president has said that his administration has been fully transparent, updating the public on critical information as it's come in -- even feigning great offense that anyone would suggest otherwise. The flat truth is that his White House has done nothing of the sort.

There's more at the link.

Now it's not just the clowns at Think Progress who're covering for the White House. With few exceptions, the mainstream press has played a low-profile in covering breaking developments on Benghazi. Again, there are a few important updates here and there ---- CBS News yesterday posted a key item at their website yesterday, and Jake Tapper has been doing critical reporting at ABC ---- but for the most part the press has not been keen to keep the story front and center, because it hurts the political chances of their favored candidate.

I'll have more on this. Meanwhile, check NewsBusters, "Bozell Statement: Liberal Media Are Accessories to Benghazi Cover-up":

The liberal "news" media’s refusal to cover this story exposes how corrupt they have become. Four Americans died in Libya in a coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The Obama Administration has been caught in a maze of falsehoods. This reeks of a cover-up. This scandal could and would derail the Obama re-election efforts. ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times are so vested in the re-election of Barack Obama that they are deliberately spiking this huge story. It’s sickening.

How big is this story? Bigger than Watergate. No one was killed in that burglary, and no one covered up the truth about the deaths of four brave Americans.

Now there are rumblings that one or more of these so-called news networks have emails from the National Security Advisor’s office telling a counter-terrorism unit to stand down. If that’s true, they must tell the American people what they know, and how long they’ve known it. And if it isn’t true, then the networks need to say so. Their silence is deafening.

RTWT.

October's Unemployment Rate Higher Than When Obama Took Office

Folks will spin this morning's jobs report every which way but truth.

At the end of the day the main statistic is 7.9 percent, the BLS measure of those remaining in the labor market but unable to find jobs. The number was 7.6 percent when Obama took office in January 2009. Here's the New York Times' spin, "Modest Job Growth in Final Report Before Election" (via Memeorandum), but see Fox News, "Last jobs report before election shows economy in 'virtual standstill'":

The final monthly jobs report before Election Day offered a mixed bag of economic evidence that quickly became political putty for the presidential candidates, with the unemployment rate ticking up to 7.9 percent but the economy adding a better-than-expected 171,000 jobs.

At the same time, the number of unemployed grew by 170,000, roughly the same amount -- to 12.3 million.

The October numbers allow President Obama to argue the economy is technically growing under his watch. But they also allow Mitt Romney to argue that the new jobs are not making much of a dent in the unemployment problem. Both campaigns quickly set to work putting their spin on data that, if nothing else, underscores the slow pace of the recovery.

"That's 9 million jobs short of what (Obama) promised," Romney said at a rally in Wisconsin shortly before noon. "Unemployment is higher today than when Barack Obama took office."

The rate was 7.8 percent the month Obama took office. "Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a sad reminder that the economy is at a virtual standstill," Romney said in a separate written statement. "When I'm president, I'm going to make real changes that lead to a real recovery, so that the next four years are better than the last."

James Pethokoukis has an analysis, "Is this as good as it gets? | October’s dismal ‘New Normal’ jobs report":

1. If we suddenly had a string of months where job growth was the same as in October, it would take 7 more years — until 2019 ! — to get back to the Bush unemployment low of 4.4%. Even if we averaged 210,000 jobs a month, we wouldn’t close jobs gap until 2021.

2. We are now 41 months into the recovery, and we have recovered just 55% of the 8.9 million lost private sector jobs from the Great Recession. During the Reagan recovery, it took just 10 months.

3. Back in early 2009, White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicted the unemployment rate would be 5.2% in October 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus. As the above chart shows, they weren’t even close.

More at the link. And see Gateway Pundit, "October Unemployment Jumps to 7.9% – Making Obama Worst Jobs President Since Great Depression."

We're stuck in the middle of the Obama Depression. The administration's economic recovery programs have failed to revive the economy. Frankly, economic growth would have returned just as fast --- perhaps even faster --- without Obama's economic stimulus and the drag of the ObamaCare monstrosity. What growth and recovery we're seeing reflects the resilience of the economy despite the heavy hand of Democrat Party regulation. If Mitt Romney's elected we'll have a much better chance of jump-starting more robust economic growth and employment activity.

We'll know for sure in four more days, barring Democrat Party elector rat-f-king.

More at Memeorandum.

Cartoon Credit. William Warren.

Don't Be Surprised When Obama Loses

Oh my goodness!

Dan McLaughlin just clobbers Nate Silver and his hopelessly idiotic enablers on the left, at RealClearPolitics. This is a fairly involved essay, with a beefy methodological section that opens the essay. (Pay attention to the section titled, "Where Polls Come From.")

And this passage is especially crucial:

Nate Silver's much-celebrated model is, like other poll averages, based simply on analyzing the toplines of public polls. This, more than any other factor, is where he and I part company.

If you read only the toplines of polls - the single number that says something like "Romney 48, Obama 47" - you would get the impression from a great many polls that this is a very tight race nationally, in which Obama has a steady lead in key swing states. In an ordinary year, the toplines of the polls eventually converge around the final result - but this year, there seems to be some stubborn splits among the poll toplines that reflect the pollsters' struggles to come to agreement on who is going to vote.

Poll toplines are simply the sum of their internals: that is, different subgroups within the sample. The one poll-watchers track most closely is the partisan breakdowns: how each candidate is doing with Republican voters, Democratic voters and independent voters, two of whom (the Rs & Ds) have relatively predictable voting patterns. Bridging the gap from those internals to the topline is the percentage of each group included in the poll, which of course derives from the likely-voter modeling and other sampling issues described above. And therein lies the controversy.

My thesis, and that of a good many conservative skeptics of the 538 model, is that these internals are telling an entirely different story than some of the toplines: that Obama is getting clobbered with independent voters, traditionally the largest variable in any election and especially in a presidential election, where both sides will usually have sophisticated, well-funded turnout operations in the field. He's on track to lose independents by double digits nationally, and the last three candidates to do that were Dukakis, Mondale and Carter in 1980. And he's not balancing that with any particular crossover advantage (i.e., drawing more crossover Republican voters than Romney is drawing crossover Democratic voters). Similar trends are apparent throughout the state-by-state polls, not in every single poll but in enough of them to show a clear trend all over the battleground states.

If you averaged Obama's standing in all the internals, you'd capture a profile of a candidate that looks an awful lot like a whole lot of people who have gone down to defeat in the past, and nearly nobody who has won. Under such circumstances, Obama can only win if the electorate features a historically decisive turnout advantage for Democrats - an advantage that none of the historically predictive turnout metrics are seeing, with the sole exception of the poll samples used by some (but not all) pollsters. Thus, Obama's position in the toplines depends entirely on whether those pollsters are correctly sampling the partisan turnout.

That's where the importance of knowing and understanding electoral history comes in. Because if your model is relying entirely on toplines that don't make any sense when you look at the internals with a knowledge of the past history of what winning campaigns look like, you need to start playing Socrates.

RTWT at the link.

Plus, check out Sean Davis, at the Daily Caller, "Is Nate Silver's value at risk?" (via Memeorandum). Well, of course it's "at risk." I've been slamming Silver's "value" for weeks now. I just don't want anything bad to happen to him, but it may be too late. The dude's starting to lose it and the editors are giving him the backhand like a whiny bitch getting slapped. Hard. (Background here, "Nate Silver Bets Joe Scarborough $2,000 That Obama Wins.")

See also Mark Blumenthal, "Could Presidential Polls Be Wrong About Obama's Battleground Edge?" (Blumenthal gives significant odds that models like Silver's will fail miserably on election day, mostly on a theory of the fundamental freakishness and unpredictability of the human experience (see the part about the "black swan").

PREVIOUSLY:

* "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."

More later...

'The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation...'

An amazing piece, at the Wall Street Journal, "CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya":

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate...

More:

In the months leading up to the attack, Mr. Stevens and others sent a series of diplomatic messages to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. Nevertheless, security at the consulate wasn't beefed up and Mr. Stevens's movements weren't restricted, according to congressional investigators.

On the night of the attack, the consulate, on a 13-acre property, was protected by five American diplomatic security officers inside the walls, supported by a small group of armed Libyans outside. The CIA's security force at the annex sometimes provided backup security for the ambassador when he traveled outside the consulate.

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

Soon after the shooting started, a diplomatic security officer at the consulate hit an alarm. By 9:40 p.m. local time—3:40 p.m. on the East Coast—the officer called the annex's security team, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic-security headquarters in Washington.

It took a seven-man team from the CIA security roughly 50 minutes to get to the consulate after it was alerted, according to administration officials.

Within 25 minutes, the team headed out of the annex to the consulate compound, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. It took another 25 minutes to reach the compound, in part because the team stopped to get heavy weapons and came under fire as they moved in, the official said.

The CIA team left the consulate around 11:30 p.m. with all American officials from the compound, except for the missing U.S. ambassador, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. They came under fire as they left.

Shortly after they arrived back at the annex, the annex began receiving small-arms fire and RPG rounds, the official said. The CIA security team returned fire and the attackers dispersed around 1 a.m.

The congressional investigator said the delay showed that the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate...

William Kristol has commentary on this, at the Weekly Standard, "Clinton vs. Petraeus — But Where's Obama?"

Yeah, where is that guy?

More at CBS News, "Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack." The report indicates that "top officials" couldn't make up their minds on what to do. Response teams were repeatedly readied for deployment then made to "stand down." It was total confusion.

And see Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, "New Details on Benghazi."

And Foreign Policy, "'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack." Also, "State Department to review its own Benghazi review," and "Congress wants answers on newly found Benghazi documents."

Video Appears to Show Syria Rebels Executing Soldiers

The New York Times reports, "Video Is Said to Show Syrian Rebels Executing Prisoners":

A new video from the Syria conflict that circulated via the Internet on Thursday showed antigovernment fighters armed with rifles kicking and summarily executing a group of prisoners, apparently soldiers or militiamen, in what human rights activists called evidence of a war crime and another indication that both sides were increasingly committing atrocities.

More at that top link. The video is here.

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, "US withdraws its support for Syrian opposition," and "US moves to demand major Syria opposition shake-up."

Obama Halloween Effigy

At CBS News, "Controversial Obama Halloween Display."

More at the Louisville Courier-Journal‎, "Effigy of President Barack Obama removed by Indiana veteran."

I guess there's mini contagion of these things. See the Los Angeles Times as well, "Halloween Obama effigy prop removed after Secret Service visit."

Romney's Killin' It With Independents in Latest Fox News Poll of Likely Voters!

See, "Three Numbers That Could Hold the Key to a Romney Win," especially the section on the independent vote:

Independents’ Day

Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades. Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative. The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate, but more unpredictable in voting habits.

But with both parties dug in deeply, the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters.

Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans. Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections. That’s certainly the case this year.

If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage, then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top.

And in that measure, Romney is succeeding by a wide margin.

In the latest FOX News poll, Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters, with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate. Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent.

But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining. Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided, the challenger, especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach, has a clear advantage over the incumbent.

And see, "Fox News poll: Race for the White House a dead heat."

Video c/o Gateway Pundit, "LANDSLIDE WATCH: Romney Holds Massive Lead Over Obama With Independent Voters …Update: Romney Up in CO, OH and IA."

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

You gotta love it. Basically, Nate Silver had a public meltdown.

From Margaret Sullivan, at the Times, "Under Attack, Nate Silver Picks the Wrong Defense."

My own Forecasting Model says there's a greater-than-zero chance that Nate Silver will be a laughingstock Nov. 7dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-…
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 2, 2012

Read the whole thing at the link. This part's especially good:

In a phone conversation, Mr. Silver described the wager offer as “half playful and half serious.”

“He’s been on a rant, calling me an idiot and a partisan, so I’m asking him to put some integrity behind it,” he said. “I don’t stand to gain anything from it; it’s for charity.”

He added that he is feeling the strain of being under attack and vulnerable to criticism as Election Day approaches.

“It’s a high-stress time,” he said.

I can understand and sympathize with that.

But whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.

You think?

PREVIOUSLY:

* "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."

More later...

Mile-Long Gas Lines in New Jersey

Well, President Solyndra can visit New Jersey 100 times and folks will still be mad as hell after going through this sh*t.

At Bloomberg, "New Jersey Drivers Wait for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline."

Celebrity Halloween Costumes

I just checked Instapundit. The amount of news over there is overwhelming. I'll try to get caught up a bit through the night, although I'm beat from teaching all day, so we'll see how it goes. Folks might check Director Blue and Maggie's Farm for additional political roundups.

Oh, and don't miss Robert Stacy McCain's updates on the Robert Menendez Dominican prostitute scandal, "KYRILLOS CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO MENENDEZ SEX ACCUSATIONS," and "BOYLE: SEN. MENENDEZ REFUSES TO RELEASE TRAVEL RECORDS."

And as for Halloween, I think the culture's gotten to that celebrity nudity and over-the-top sex displays are almost passé. I mean Lady Gaga's costume was to dress up at a topless dancer? See London's Daily Mail, "Dress code said Halloween... not porn queen! Gaga exposes her chest in barely-there marijuana costume." And Jenny McCarthy's not far behind, "Where is the rest of your costume? Jenny McCarthy celebrates Halloween and her 40th birthday dressed in raunchy lingerie."

I don't know. What ever happened to Elvira, Mistress of the Dark? Didn't see leave a little to the imagination? Well, yes. She still does, in fact.

In Deadlocked Race, Neither Side Has Ground Game Advantage

According to Pew Research.

I guess we won't know for sure until election day.

That said, Robert Stacy McCain's got the goods on Ohio, and things are trending for Mitt Romney in a big way. And see especially, "BREAKING NEWS FROM OHIO: REPUBLICAN WOMEN ARE HOT."

Check over at The Other McCain for updates.

PHOTO CREDIT: Lower the Boom.

'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'

The Sound L.A. was "Under the Covers" for Halloween, playing cover songs for the entire day. Here's Santana from about 9:00pm last night:

Classified Cable From Benghazi Warned Danger of 'Coordinated Attack' on Consulate

It's virtually Fox News that's all by itself in investigating this story, which is a sad comment on the role of the press in American democracy.

At Fox News, "Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand ‘coordinated attack’."

At the clip, Catherine Herridge says the State Department has "culpability" in the deaths of our personnel.

The Numbers Favor Mitt Romney

From Karl Rove, at the Wall Street Journal, "Sifting the Numbers for a Winner":

It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney.

He maintains a small but persistent polling edge. As of yesterday afternoon, there had been 31 national surveys in the previous seven days. Mr. Romney led in 19, President Obama in seven, and five were tied. Mr. Romney averaged 48.4%; Mr. Obama, 47.2%. The GOP challenger was at or above 50% in 10 polls, Mr. Obama in none.

The number that may matter the most is Mr. Obama's 47.2% share. As the incumbent, he's likely to find that number going into Election Day is a percentage point or so below what he gets.

For example, in 2004 President George W. Bush had 49% in the final Gallup likely-voter track; he received 50.7% on Election Day. In 1996, President Clinton was at 48% in the last Gallup; he got 49.2% at the polls. And in 1992, President George H.W. Bush was at 37% in the closing Gallup; he collected 37.5% in the balloting.

One potentially dispositive question is what mix of Republicans and Democrats will show up this election. On Friday last week, Gallup hinted at the partisan makeup of the 2012 electorate with a small chart buried at the end of its daily tracking report. Based on all its October polling, Gallup suggested that this year's turnout might be 36% Republican to 35% Democratic, compared with 39% Democratic and 29% Republican in 2008, and 39% Republican and 37% Democratic in 2004. If accurate, this would be real trouble for Mr. Obama, since Mr. Romney has consistently led among independents in most October surveys.

Gallup delivered some additional bad news to Mr. Obama on early voting. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said they had already cast a ballot either in person or absentee. They broke for Mr. Romney, 52% to 46%. The 63% who said they planned to vote on Election Day similarly supported Mr. Romney, 51% to 45%.

Well, let's not get cocky.

Leaks and Lies

Via Theo Spark:

Pastor Joseph Lowery: 'All White People Are Going to Hell...'

Well, it'd be one thing if folks were talking about Jeremiah Wright, but this guy marched with Dr. King.

Not good.

At the Washington Examiner, "Pastor who prayed at Obama’s inauguration says all white people will go to hell." (At Memeorandum.)

Also, from Diane Glidewell, "Civil rights icons pump Obama in Forsyth: Lowery, Don't think whites going to heaven."

That's how Democrats are transcending racial division, or something? Actually, I'm hopin' for some change.

Ladd Ehlinger's Retirement

From political ad production, explained at his post, "Last Political Video.

Human Rights Campaign Files Complaint Over Text Messages

At HRC, the freakin' crybabies:

HRC is calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate mass spam texts that are taking aim at President Obama, marriage equality, and a number of other progressive issues. Recently, HRC supporters have received unsolicited anti-gay text messages such as: “Obama endorses the legality of same-sex marriage. Say No to Obama at the polls on Nov 6.” The Washington Post reports that the texts originated from ccAdvertising, a firm specializing in political phone and text outreach – and with a history of spamming cell phone users with unsolicited content. HRC’s letter to the FCC is available here.

Since many Americans pay for their text messages on an as-used basis, ccAdvertising is costing money to some cell phone users by spamming them with these unwanted messages.

It appears ccAdvertising tried to hide their identity on their website – a violation of the terms of service with their online host, GoDaddy. As a result, GoDaddy revoked ccAdvertising’s anonymity and their leading role in sending the text messages became clear. It remains to be seen who is funding the firm’s unsolicited anti-equality texts. The Washington Post reports that ccAdvertising’s chief operating officer is Republican Jason Flanary, who is currently running for Senate in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Shoot, if that landed in my inbox I'd forward it to everyone on my contact list. The freaks.

New Jersey Reels From Storm's Punch

The video's from Megyn Kelly's opening segment yesterday.

And at the New York Times, "New Jersey Is Reeling From Punch by a Storm":

HOBOKEN, N.J. — New Jersey was reeling on Wednesday from the impact of Hurricane Sandy, which has caused catastrophic flooding here in Hoboken and in other New York City suburbs, destroyed entire neighborhoods across the state and wiped out iconic boardwalks in shore towns that had enchanted generations of vacationgoers.

Though the storm raged up the East Coast, it has become increasingly apparent that New Jersey took the brunt of it. Officials estimated that the state suffered many billions of dollars in property damage. About a quarter of the state’s population — more than two million people — remained without power on Wednesday, and more than 6,000 were still in shelters, state emergency officials said.

At least eight people died, and officials expressed deep concerns that the toll would rise as more searches of homes were carried out.

On Wednesday, President Obama visited the state and viewed the destruction with Gov. Chris Christie.

“The entire country has been watching what’s been happening,” Mr. Obama said at a stop in Atlantic County at the Brigantine Beach Community Center in Brigantine. “Everybody knows how hard Jersey has been hit.”

Perhaps as startling as the sheer toll was the devastation to some of the state’s well-known locales. Boardwalks along the beach in Seaside Heights, Belmar and other towns on the Jersey Shore were blown away. Amusement parks, arcades and restaurants all but vanished. Bridges to barrier islands buckled, preventing residents from even inspecting the damage to their property.

Localities across New Jersey imposed curfews to prevent looting. In Monmouth, Ocean and other counties, people waited for hours for gasoline at the few stations that had electricity. Supermarket shelves were stripped bare.

Two days after Hurricane Sandy struck, such distress was not limited to New Jersey.

Continue reading.

'Bronco Bamma'

It will be over soon.

Via Memeorandum.

Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez Rumored Sex Scandal With Dominican Prostitutes?

Drudge Report had the headline earlier, "SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN..."

And at The Other McCain, "BOB MENENDEZ AND HOOKERS?"

UPDATE: Shortly after the Drudge Report headline went up, my associate Ali Akbar got a tip that the story involved Sen. Menendez of New Jersey and at least one prostitute with whom he trysted on a taxpayer-funded trip to the Dominican Republic. Within one hour, Akbar had confirmed this with other sources, and we understand that numerous reporters in D.C. have heard similar reports.

Did someone say, Dominican Republic prostitutes? Anxiously awaiting The DC article that will bring Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) down.#tcot
— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) November 1, 2012

Check the Daily Caller for the breaking report, and at AoSHQ, "What I'm Hearing About The Sex Scandal":

Here's what I'm hearing. And bear in mind, I'm merely hearing it.

The story involves a Senator flying down to a big donor's place in the Caribbean for orgies. Hookers are involved.

The One Big Snag in the story is that the story comes from hookers -- a couple of them, I hear -- and their credibility is, well. They're hookers. It's not Gold Standard.

Well, I guess I shouldn't call them "hookers." Let's say "escorts."

Escorts, for your penis.

UPDATE: Folks should check Ace of SpadesHQ on Twitter. He's got a lot of newsy updates, especially some thoughts on the delays.

And check this earlier entry at Twitchy, "Matt Drudge teases campaign sex scandal; Twitter speculates; Update: ‘Powerful senator’; Update: Menendez?"

BREAKING: Here's the report, "Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic."

A Brutal Polling Day? Not for Mitt Romney

I guess folks on the left don't really look at survey internals, which is odd, since all these drive-by commenters keep saying conservatives can't do math. Looks the other way around, frankly. A good example is this report at TPM, "After Brutal Polling Day, Romney Team Reassures That They’ll Win" (at Memeorandum).

And the evidence for these so-called "brutal" numbers for Romney? Well, an obvious outlier at National Journal that has Obama up 50-45 when no other national poll of any repute shows a spread in Obama's favor like that. Even the hopelessly Democrat-heavy New York Times/Quinnipiac poll today had a miniscule Obama edge at 48-47. And on Monday Pew Research had the race deadlocked at 47 percent, with a turnout edge for Romney.

TPM's also claiming Obama's up by five in Ohio, which is again relying on the Times/Quinnipiac survey for the Buckeye State. But as I noted this morning, NYT's Ohio numbers are badly off, way out of line with both 2008 exit polling data on Democrat and Republican turnout, as well as likely turnout numbers for the GOP this year with the enthusiasm gap taken into consideration. Bryan Preston has more on that, "That Q Poll Showing Obama Up by Five in Ohio Has a Flaw (Updated: PPP Too?)." (PPP is the far-left Kos pollster, which almost always favors Democrats and is thus widely discredited.) See Ed Morrissey on those NYT numbers as well, "Final CBS/NYT/Q-polls in OH, FL, VA show Obama up …":

In each of these three states, the CBS/NYT/Q-poll shows Republicans at a lower percentage level of turnout than in the 2008 election. If one makes that assumption, it’s not too difficult to be guess that Obama might be ahead. However, that’s exactly the opposite of what all other polls rating enthusiasm are telling us what the electorate will look like on Tuesday. In fact, it’s not even what this poll shows, with Republican enthusiasm +16 over Democrats in Florida, +14 in Ohio, and +7 in Virginia.

And to round things off, here's the poll from the University of Cincinnati's Institute for Policy Research on Ohio, which has Obama up 48-46 with a partisan breakdown of D-45, R-43 percent, and I-12 (and note that independents here, who are breaking for Romney in all other polls, are probably under-sampled, to say nothing of the over-sampled Democrats).

So, it's not Mitt Romney who's having a "brutal polling day." If anything, it's the truth that's having a "brutal honesty day." Polling methodology (i.e., math) is not hard. If progressives get it they're not letting on, which is even worse from an integrity standpoint.

Hurricane Sandy Won't Save President 'I' Candy

From Dick Morris, "Here comes the landslide":

Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.

As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.

The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor...

Continue reading. And then compare to MoDo, "The ‘I’ of the Storm" (at Memeorandum).

Presidential Race Too Close to Call in Final Week

The New York Times still has Obama up by 5 in Ohio, which at this point in the race is a complete joke.

And here's the Times' report for its nationwide poll, "Obama and Romney in Exceedingly Close Race, Poll Finds":

Polls that show Obama ahead on both state & national levels almost all based on assumed huge Dem turnout surpassing 08.
— Jonathan S. Tobin (@TobinCommentary) October 31, 2012

COLUMBUS, Ohio — President Obama and Mitt Romney enter the closing week of the campaign in an exceedingly narrow race, according to the latest poll by The New York Times and CBS News, with more voters now viewing Mr. Romney as a stronger leader on the economy and Mr. Obama as a better guardian of the middle class.

The president is holding his coalition together with strong support from women and minority voters and is supported by 48 percent of likely voters nationwide, the poll found, while Mr. Romney holds a wide advantage among independents and men and is the choice of 47 percent.

The race for the White House, which has been interrupted by the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy’s deadly assault on the East Coast, is heading toward an uncertain conclusion. The president was set to stay off the campaign trail for a third straight day to tour storm damage on Wednesday with Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican. Mr. Romney was set to resume a full schedule in Florida.

In the final days, the most intense competition between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney has narrowed to seven states, but the national poll illustrates why the Romney campaign is working to expand the battleground and seize upon the deep concern in the electorate about whether the president should win a second term.

The Times has been oversampling Democrats, so it's probably not as "close" as the report suggests.

Campaign Resumes After Pause for Hurricane

At the Wall Street Journal, "Race Is Back On After Storm Hiatus":

As the ruinous force of Sandy begins to diminish, the nominal pause it created in the presidential election campaign is about to fade away.

President Barack Obama continued his detour from the campaign trail Tuesday to focus on storm response. Republican Mitt Romney set aside a planned political rally in favor of a relief event to help storm victims. Both asked supporters to make donations to the Red Cross.

But a presidential campaign racing toward its conclusion next week is taking little more than a short break to acknowledge the storm's impact.

Even as Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama canceled political appearances Tuesday, the two campaigns escalated a heated exchange over Mr. Romney's suggestion that the president's auto bailout had benefited China, rather than U.S. autoworkers. With new TV ad buys, Mr. Romney and his allies also pushed to enlarge the set of competitive states to include Pennsylvania, long an elusive prize for the Republican nominees.

Mr. Romney will return to his schedule of campaign appearances Wednesday in hopes of regaining the momentum many polls showed he had built in recent weeks. Mr. Obama is scheduled to follow suit on Thursday, after more time in Washington and a tour of storm damage in New Jersey, as he juggles the political rewards and risks of focusing on the government disaster response.

Northeast states grappled with how to make sure voting next week isn't unduly affected by the storm. With widespread power outages, flooding and blocked roads, officials said they may have to move or consolidate some polling locations. Connecticut gave voters two extra days to register while Maryland said it may have to resort to paper ballots for some locations due to power outages, which could delay the vote count.
For Mr. Obama, the turn to disaster management paid a surprising political dividend when he won praise on Tuesday from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who has been a scathing critic of his presidency.

"The president has been great," Mr. Christie, who represents Mr. Romney at campaign events, said on MSNBC. "The president has been all over this and he deserves great credit." It was one of several television interviews in which Mr. Christie praised Mr. Obama, who will tour New Jersey storm damage Wednesday with the governor.

He's been great, alright --- at never letting a crisis go to waste.

See: "Obama to Tour Storm-Damaged New Jersey."

Image: People's Cube.

Obama to Tour Storm-Damaged New Jersey

At the Hill, "Odd couple Christie and Obama to tour devastated NJ shore." (Via Memeorandum.)

Christie said he couldn't care less about politics right now. Interesting, because Obama couldn't care more. See Howard Kurtz, "President Obama’s New Jersey Gambit Centers on Hurricane Sandy Relief."

And see Rick Moran, at American Thinker, "Left sees Sandy as an opportunity to push for bigger government,"

Image: People's Cube.

Barack Obama and Other Has-Beens

You have to read this in full, the best ever essay from Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal.

Sandy's Death Toll Now 50

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Northeast faces long road back; death toll at 50":

BEACH HAVEN, N.J. -- Sandy’s departure from the Northeast on Tuesday brought no hint of relief, revealing instead a tableau of splintered trees, severed beaches, shuttered businesses and the harsh reality that the storm will test even the most hardened resolve in weeks to come.

The U.S. death toll rose to 50, including three children, and estimates of the property damage soared to $20 billion, which would make Sandy among the nation’s costliest natural disasters. More than 8 million homes and businesses in 17 states were without power, half of them in New York and New Jersey. Some outages could stretch into next week.

And see the Wall Street Journal, "Power Outages May Last Over a Week," and "State-by-State Toll, Including Power Outages."

Big Storm Opportunism

At the Wall Street Journal:

Our former editor Robert Bartley once quipped (fondly) about the writer Jude Wanniski that he thought a capital-gains tax cut could intercept a Soviet SS-20 missile in mid-flight. We were reminded of that monomania Tuesday as the political left more or less declared in unison that the ravages of Hurricane Sandy prove that America needs bigger government.

We know liberals are worried that President Obama might lose next week, but are they so panicky that they want to suggest even before the storm has passed that Mitt Romney and Republicans are against disaster relief? Apparently so. It's an especially low-rent tactic, akin to blaming the tea party for Jared Lee Loughner's shooting of Gabby Giffords. But it's equally absurd to argue that a once-in-a-century storm means you can't block-grant Medicaid.

The rap on Mr. Romney seems to be that he once said emergency management could be done well and perhaps better at the state level, and he also endorsed Paul Ryan's House Republican budget.

Let's look at the record. Regarding the budget for FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), Mr. Obama's own fiscal 2013 budget sought $10.008 billion. That was a cut of $641.5 million, or 6.02%, from fiscal 2012. We couldn't find an apples-to-apples comparison in the Ryan budget resolution, because FEMA spending was part of a larger category and the Senate never did pass its budget. But if budget cuts to FEMA are the liberal standard, their beef is with Mr. Obama. By the way, Mr. Romney says he doesn't want to abolish FEMA.

None of which means that FEMA is above reform. Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation has found that annual FEMA disaster declarations have multiplied since the Clinton years and have reached a yearly average of 153 under Mr. Obama. That compares to 129.6 under George W. Bush, 89.5 under Mr. Clinton, and only 28 a year under Reagan. Mr. Mayer argues that taxpayers and storm victims would be better served if FEMA devoted itself to helping out in the biggest disasters, such as Sandy, and not dive in at every political request for assistance.

As for Mr. Romney and FEMA, the liberals are excavating remarks from one of the early GOP debates. CNN's John King asked if "the states should take on more" of a role in disaster relief as FEMA was running out of money.

Mr. Romney: "Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.

"Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in."

This isn't an argument for abolishing FEMA so much as it is for the traditional federalist view that the feds shouldn't supplant state action...

Exactly.

I wrote about those exact comments earlier, and the asshat response from the lame brains at MSNBC: "MSNBC Hate-Trolls Attack Mitt Romney's Relief Efforts for Hurricane Sandy Victims."

Mind-Boggling Photos from Hurricane Sandy

Astonishing.

See Atlas Shrugs, "DAMAGE."

MSNBC Hate-Trolls Attack Mitt Romney's Relief Efforts for Hurricane Sandy Victims

Noel Sheppard offers an outstanding analysis, "MSNBC Ridicules Romney for Collecting Food and Supplies for Sandy Victims":

This one is really hard to believe, even for the most biased so-called "news network" in the nation.

MSNBC on Tuesday totally trashed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for collecting food and supplies at a storm rally event in Ohio to be sent to victims of Hurricane Sandy (video follows with transcript and commentary)....

When the clip concluded, Bashir said, “Mayor Reed, so the Red Cross knows what it’s doing. Did he, did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?”

Imagine that. A presidential candidate who gives millions of dollars a year to charity does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash.

Yet according to the Washington Post:

The stop was billed as a “storm relief” event, and attendees were asked to bring non-perishable foods and other items for those affected by the storm. Long white tables to one side of the cavernous James S. Trent Arena were piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods.

Two large TV screens at the front of the venue bore the logo of the American Red Cross and the message: “Sandy: Support the Relief Effort. Text ’REDCROSS’ to 90999 to make a $10 donation.”

So besides the food and supplies that Ohioans generously donated, two large television screens asked participants to send money to the Red Cross.

But this didn’t make Bashir happy. Ditto his Obama-supporting guests.

“I think that this is just another moment where you see the clear striking difference between a president who has a heart for the American people and someone who simply wants to be president of the United States,” said Mayor Reed.

“Indeed,” replied Bashir who then asked for Peterson’s input.

“I would agree,” echoed Peterson. “It’s compassion that shows through in times like these. It’s humanity that shows through in times like these, and it just seems clear that the President, in addition to stepping up and doing what he does as Commander-in-Chief, demonstrates compassion in these remarks and in his approach to this kind of serious disaster.” “All we’ve seen from Romney and from his surrogates is all kinds of politicizing and misdirection,” Peterson continued, “and I think the American people in this sort of disastrous moment can really see in bold relief the differences between President Obama and former Governor Romney.”

There's more at the link, but note at the YouTube clip above that Bashir also slams Romney for comments he made during the GOP primary debates. Romney argued that the states could handle disaster relief, and then ultimately private businesses. This really set off the MSNBC clowns off. These idiots haven't a clue. Of course there are any number of ways to deliver disaster relief along the lines suggested by Romney. The federal government can work cooperatively with the states, helping to finance relief efforts that are performed by state and local agencies. That's hardly controversial. The progressive idiots are trying to argue that Romney just doesn't care. In fact, Romney's making the case to improve both efficiency and cost. We know from Katrina that Louisiana should have acted sooner to request federal assistance from Washington. The states have emergency contingency planning. They are the first responders. The federal government responds at the request of a state's governor. Moreover, the idea that it's always the federal government that provides relief and services is ridiculous. Private contracting for all kinds of public sector operations are routine. William Jacobson has more, at the New York Times, "Only When the States Can’t Handle a Problem":

The issue of FEMA versus states and private enterprise is not an either/or choice. The question should be how to most efficiently allocate resources both before and after unpredictable major disasters.

We currently use a model that relies on state and local government, together with private contractors, in a wide variety of situations.

Snow removal is a good example. Even in times of severe, multistate blizzards, private contractors play a critical role. State and local governments cannot put enough plows on the roads on short notice, so they maintain contractual relationships with private companies to provide the service as needed.

Similarly, in times of widespread power outage, as we have now, utility companies, not state or local governments, provide relief for downed power lines and electricity and phone interruptions. Throughout the Northeast the relief will come from these contractors, many on loan from other regions, to provide this relief.

The state/private model makes sense precisely because large-scale disasters are infrequent and unpredictable. Does it make sense to maintain a large federal inventory of personnel, equipment and supplies in this scenario?
FEMA doesn’t think so. FEMA itself maintains a registry of contractors and private resources that can be used depending on the situation, and relies on states and local governments for preparedness.

The most efficient role for the federal government is to fill in where states cannot, for example, where the damage is of such a nature that it is not amenable to state or local solutions. Hurricane damage typically is localized, and requires a street-by-street response which the federal government is ill prepared to provide. A large oil spill, by contrast, is not capable of local relief alone, and that is where federal coordination can be most effective.

So where is the controversy in Governor Romney’s statement?

There is no controversy. Romney was governor of a state on the East Coast. He knows about these kinds of public/private relationships by experience. And he knows from his private sector background that efficiency is improved by contracting and cooperative planning at different levels of government. The radical MSNBC hacks haven't the foggiest idea of these notions. Everyone's talking about this is the kind of emergency where we MUST HAVE big government. Now that's some politicization. Amazingly dishonest too, since it was the president today on television urging people to make contributions to the Red Cross, which is a private organization. See also Russell Sobel, "The Free Market Can Do a Better Job."