Forward

Sunday Updates

President Obama leads in early voting  59% to 31%

Swing state polls:

Colorado: Obama 48  Romney 46 (Gravis)
Florida:  Romney 49  Obama 48 (PPP) 

Saturday Swing state polls:

PPP Ohio poll: President Obama 51  Romney 46
Arizona: Obama 44 Romney 42  (This is supposed to be safe for Romney)

The Obama campaign reports:
4 million donors--that's one out of every 75 Americans

The Obama campaign so far has registered:
More than 40,000 voters in both PA and Colorado
More than 60,000 voters in Florida
More than 75,000 voters in North Carolina

Nearly 800 field offices open; Romney has fewer than 300.



And joining the Obama team: The Boss.  Bruce Springsteen will campaign for Obama in Ohio and Iowa, alongside Bill Clinton.

Just One Little Bullet Doesn't Matter, Right?

A gun shot was fired, apparently from a vehicle, into a field office where Obama volunteers were making phone calls on Friday, and today--as the Denver Post says--the silence is deafening.

Of course it is Colorado, where apparently gunfire isn't news unless it kills people, causes a debilitating injury to a sitting U.S. Member of Congress, or kills, maims terrorizes teenagers in a high school or at a Batman movie.

But gunfire in a presidential campaign should be a very serious story.  We ignore it at our peril.  There are plenty of examples in European history of the danger of such actions, and particularly the danger of dismissing or ignoring them.

Saturday the Denver Post followup begins: "Amid the fierce noise of a presidential campaign, the silence from all parties was deafening Saturday as police continued to investigate a suspected gunshot into the Obama field office near downtown Denver."   

And the story provides no further information that wasn't in Friday's brief story, partly because nobody (police, political parties, etc.) is talking.  But I wonder if it is also because not enough people are asking.

A shot fired into a political office would have been a scandal in Denver in 1892, but apparently not in 2012.  What kind of a country are we becoming?

Gun Shot into Obama Campaign Office

It's not a major news story yet, but shouldn't it be?  On Friday afternoon a bullet shattered a window of an Obama field office in Denver.  There were people working in the office at the time.  No one was reported injured.

As of early Saturday morning there are few details, and apparently little interest in obtaining them.  Here's the Denver Post story.  Nobody else seems to have any more.

The Week in Numbers

So it's been a week since the first debate and the unemployment numbers.  As I ventured in the previous post, the Romney surge in the polls tracks in time with the post-debate consensus, though te poli sci folks don't all agree that's entirely the reason--Romney's numbers started to move up even before that, and the surge seems to be coming from disenchanted GOPers, but more than that as well.  The better than expected unemployment number does not seem to have translated into a counter-wave, so it may take the next debate to change the trajectory in a clear way. 

But apparently President Obama has not held his national lead, though all the polls are within one or two points and several are tied.  Gallup's latest tracking has Romney up 2 points with likely voters, but Obama up by one among registered voters.  So for Obama partisans--and anybody not interested in seeing this country fall apart under rampant injustice etc.--it remains tense. But Romney has not followed up his debate with flawlessness on the campaign trail--he and Ryan continue to provide copious ammunition.  With the second debate on Tuesday, who knows where we will be a week from now. 

Though the state polls were more dour on Friday, it is possible to find a few that are moving back towards Obama.  The Dish plots a trend line in Obama's favor in Virginia.  The latest Florida numbers are worrisome--although I never counted on Florida because of the mischief the GOPers have successfully sowed into the voting process there.  It's worse than Ohio.  The latest polls in Ohio suggest a much tighter race, but I notice that the pros are generally skeptical that Romney is going to be able to pull that one off.  Still, Nate Silver is as unbearish on an Obama victory as he has been in months, noting the fragile state leads.  He pegs Obama's chances all the way down to 61%.

Which leads to the overall electoral college evaluations at this point.  At Daily Kos, Singiser   notes that strictly working with poll numbers the race has become uncertain, though still fundamentally favoring President Obama:

"Taken at their current face value, that would put Obama at 281 electoral votes, and Romney at 257 electoral votes. However, it is not difficult to see how a very small further shift in the electorate could both elevate Romney to the presidency, or consign him to the ash heap. With just a shift of two percentage points in his direction, Romney would gain both Nevada and Ohio, that would push him to 281 electoral votes, and with it, the White House. However, if there is a shift of just 2 points in the president's direction, he gets back a raft of states (Colorado, Florida and Virginia). That would put him at 332 electoral votes, making him a decisive winner for a second term."

But what if you take other factors into consideration?  My old boss (sort of) Paul Solman interviewed economist David Rothchild for PBS--he tracks polling but also economic trends and the predictions market, which has a pretty good track record.  He sees Obama as a heavy favorite, and notes the rationale:

"What I would say is that a state like Ohio has maintained its Obama friendliness but as it gets closer and closer to Election Day, it becomes more and more likely that it will actually vote for Obama come Election Day. So it's not a shifting of opinion as much as it's saying, "Romney is running out of time to shift that opinion." And as that happens, you see very few states cross each other, in essence, and so that ranking holds...

So take that order, start adding up electoral votes until you hit 270. You're going to find a pivot state: a state that if Obama holds he wins and that if Romney can reach he wins, and that state has been Ohio for virtually the entire election cycle. It means that if Romney can get all the states up to that point, he can win this election. But that includes Florida and Virginia on top of Ohio and those are three big hurdles and that means on the flip [side] that all Obama has had to do is hold one of those states. Just one of those main three states, and that's what's been giving him that edge this entire time."

Of course these aren't all the factors--there's the ground game, voter suppression, the weather, etc.  All kinds of things that figure into a close election, if it is that close.  So come election night, if  Obama wins Virginia and North Carolina, it will start to look like a landslide.  But even if he loses both of those and Florida, it will probably still come down to Ohio and secondarily to Iowa.  But even in what now looks like a blowout in 2008, the returns from those eastern states were a long time coming, and it was pretty close to the end (when the Pacific states came in) that the results from Florida and Ohio were known.  Great.  And there's still three weeks + to go even before we get to that long night.

But I also noted that Rothschild stressed economic trend factors, and that the predictions market was on top of the data.  And it was reported that consumer confidence jumped unexpectedly higher. What that means may not be known until the election returns.

 It would be great to see another big move towards Obama to ease the tension these last weeks.  It's possible. Already since the vp debate, it's becoming more accepted that Biden won it. (An Ipso poll out Friday said so.)  Dems and pundits are finding more and more in the debate that works for Obama, if carried on.  No polls yet reflect any influence from the debate--it would be unusual if there were any (but let's fact it--this has been an unusual year.)  One thing is certain:  Biden has injected more energy going into this weekend.

Joltin Joe

Joe has jolted Dems out of their torpor.  But the anxiety remains and it has a real basis.

It is convenient to blame the rise of Romney in the polls to President Obama's first debate performance, but while that's probably been a big factor, the even more depressing possibility is that Romney's mendacity is becoming effective.

That's the real nightmare here: that voters are believing Romney's lies.  Joe Biden called the Romneyryans on it last night, which has cheered Dems and while GOPers go on about the Biden affect, the Biden effect may be to highlight the lies.

There's been pushback today on Romneyryan's fuzzy math.  A prominent GOPer economist admits that the Romney tax cut numbers just don't add up.  An analyst goes one by one through the "six studies" Ryan said support their plan, to show that none of them does.

But this is the dull fear we feel, scarred by years when GOPers got away with systematic lies that damaged the future, killed and maimed people, etc.  With a Romneyryan victory we're headed for a dire future, something out of Soylent Green crossed with Hunger Games and A Handmaid's Tale.

So we're happy that Joe Biden called out the lies.  President Obama is doing so on the stump, and we can look forward to him doing so in Tuesday's debate. But if and until the poll numbers start to turn back, some of us aren't going to be sleeping very well.  We've been through this nightmare before.

But Joe Biden did something else last night that hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet: he went away the GOPer Congress for obstructing progress towards accelerating the recovery and providing jobs as well as much needed infrastructure and public servant (police, fire, teachers) support.

That's an October move that could be resonant.  Another is the Supreme Court.  Joe hit this one too and it must be repeated often: Roe v. Wade plus a host of other issues are in the balance, depending on who gets to appoint the Justices in the next four years.

Victorious Thursday

The post-debate analysis is a little wiggly, what with the guidance from instant polls being mixed and CNN steadfastly holding to a draw.  The CBS poll of undecided voters however was pretty clear: Joe Biden won.  50% said so, while another 20% thought it was a draw, and 30% Ryan.

But the Dem bloggers and pundits are happy, not to say joyous, and it's clear why: Joe took it to Romneyryan with authority.  All the noise about smiling and interrupting, and how that might affect undecided voters--well, the CBS poll tells you.  They saw it for what it was: Biden reacting to Ryan's lies, obfuscations and confusions.

Joe hit the main marks hard: Medicare especially, but also women's rights.  Right now it's all about women in Ohio.  As a bonus, he showed how dangerously vacuous the GOPer ticket is on foreign policy.  Plus he pushed Romneyryan back hard right on Social Security, Roe v. Wade, etc.

What everybody noticed is that this was the performance the Dems needed to renew their enthusiasm and self-belief, let alone self confidence.  It will mean a lot.

President Obama earlier made a fiery speech in Florida, which bodes well for the next debate, not even a week away.

I'm not linking much this time because for some reason my Internet connection is incredibly slow.

But I can't leave without saying a word about those SF Giants.  Buster grand slam!  Matt Cain!  Hanging on to become the first NL team to win this series with 3 straight victories on the road.  The A's couldn't master Verlander, though.  And the Orioles and Washington have victories to remember regardless of what happens tomorrow. 

Joe's Show

It's Joe' Show on Thursday for the vp debate.  Rumors that it's really going to be Bill Clinton wearing a Biden Halloween mask are probably exaggerated.  But it's Joe's job to steady the ship until the Obama mounts his comeback in successive weeks.

The first presidential debate yielded a Romney victory that people are apparently still talking about, but as Rachel Maddow pointed out, not a single soundbite for either candidate, except for the Big Bird moment.  Chances are there will be soundbite moments Thursday, now that everybody realizes that theatrics sell in the twitterverse.

Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it, and Joe's getting plenty (some of it probably well-paid actually) but the temptation to dwell too much in the ghostly land between Ryan and Romney's positions on things might better be avoided, in favor of hammering on women's issues and Medicare. 

More polls Wednesday, same basic results.  The swing state polls show Obama still ahead but by smaller margins.  The national polls are tilting Romney or tied.  Everything seems awfully close to the margin of error.  Is anybody else dreading that this comes down to the jobs report on the Friday before election weekend?

Elsewhere, after losing their home games the Bay teams evened their series' on the road.  I'm not much of an Oakland fan (I retain a sentimental attachment to Jim Leyland the former Bucs skipper in Detroit) but the Giants are endlessly entertaining.  Their bats finally came alive, but their starting pitching--their usual strongest point--continues to struggle.  And then comes the starter who got left out of the rotation, to become the hero with five strong innings in relief, Tim Lincecum.  So the way the story should go is that the Giants get what they haven't gotten for 4 games: a dominant starting pitcher, and despite recent rocky outings Matt Cain is a pretty good candidate.    

Low Profile Tuesday

Tuesday the Romney bounce continued to show up in polls, though not enough so far to overcome President Obama's lead in key swing states, especially Ohio.  Amidst Dem angst, several polling experts and poly sci types advised patience, as President Obama is still favored (a 70% favorite by oddsmakers and the NYT guy.)

On the bright side, the SF Giants stayed alive in the playoffs, leading to this odd description leading the  AP  account: "Joaquin Arias hit a grounder toward third base and took off toward third, covering those 90 feet in a blink as a full-to-capacity ballpark went silent with angst."   If Arias actually had taken off toward third, it would be Giant fans with the angst (there's that word again.)  And here's a neat story about Hunter Pence's pregame pep talk and game heroics.

Meanwhile, there's also the ongoing Doonesbury strips on Mitt Romney.  My favorite so far.

 

And since the Sesame Street people are trying to keep Big Bird out of politics, this may be my only opportunity to show this.

Music Break for Blue Monday

From a 1987 benefit in the UK, George Harrison and Eric Clapton with a lot of other all-stars including Ringo, Elton John and Phil Collins on Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps."

Blue Monday

The polls taken last week just after the debate are starting to show up now, and they are very bad.  The Pew poll showing Romney with a 4 point national lead is particularly horrifying.  But apparently most of that was also done on those two days.  The unanimous pundit judgment on the debate is reflected in these polls.

However several online sources I checked today say that the polling for President Obama rebounded over the weekend.  That won't be expressed in new polls for a few days.  The danger here is that because the polls have this time lag, a certain new narrative starts to set in.  And there are certain alarmists on cable and on the Internet who are susceptible. 

The lasting effect is apt to be higher enthusiasm among Romney supporters than there was before the debate.  The Romney campaign is also apparently starting to unleash its big money in ads.  As I speculated, they seem to have been marshaling forces for an October push.  The question is whether it's enough to erase everything that's come before.

A good Biden performance in the v.p. debate this week will help, but it will need to be President Obama in the two remaining presidential debates who will have to reassure voters that their pre-debate estimations were the correct ones.

In good news,  Democratic Senate candidates are doing well in Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut and Wisconsin, all tight races.  But I would like to see President Obama hold one big rally in Boston in late October to seal the deal for Elizabeth Warren.

Music Break

George Harrison and Bob Dylan during a soundcheck for the Bangladesh benefit concert in 1971 perform "If Not For You," a Dylan composition which each had recorded separately, though it's the Harrison version that became the best known, and the standard for future versions by others.  Anyway, it's a great song for the weekend.

Pivot

President Obama's response to his debate performance was immediate.  At his first campaign rallies he was energized, focused, commanding, funny and incisive.  He attacked Romney for his manifest lies, and for his many contradictions. 

And the crowds were there for him.  12,000 in Denver, and 30,000 in Madison, Wisconsin.  Preliminary fundraising numbers suggest that the Obama campaign brought in more than $150 million in September, a record for this campaign by anyone.  Update: The final figures for Sept. indicate $181 million.  Also in September, the Obama campaign passed 10 million total donors in 2012.

The news cycles since Wednesday changed topics rapidly.  At first the Romney debate win.  Then pretty quickly, the Romney lies.  He lied about his tax plan.  He lied about the number of green companies that got federal support and went under (he said half.  It's less than 1%.)  He lied about how wonderfully bipartisan he was as gov of MA.  Above all he lied about what his own healthcare plan provides.  It does not in any way stop insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.  Paul Krugman called it a sick joke.

But what seems to be lasting from the debate was a single line by Romney that he probably meant as a sop to conservatives (who were otherwise getting shafted by his apparent etch-a-sketch position changes) and a mild attempt to show himself as a tough administrator: he vowed to not only end Obamacare, but to shut down PBS.  He specifically mentioned Big Bird.

The debate got a huge audience and a record number of tweets--more on Big Bird than any other moment.  And that's what has lasted.  Not only in the outrage of people like LeVar Burton that Romney would target programs that help children learn to read for a miniscule savings in the federal budget, or even by frightening children themselves, but by providing President Obama with a very effective campaign riff.  Romney refuses to reign in Wall Street, he said, but he wants to destroy Sesame Street.

Then came the big news of the September jobs report on Friday.  It would be big news only if it were very bad or very good.  It was very good.  The unemployment rate went from 8.1 to 7.8, which is the big headline.  But the report also shows that the economy was growing faster during the summer than previous reports suggested, as new jobs totals for the previous two months were revised sharply upward.

This good news for the American economy was greeted by Republicans with denial, and with suggestions that the Obama administration had fixed the numbers--precisely the most damaging response they could make, because it showed that they found an improving American economy disappointing--they would rather than more people unemployed.

But then this is fairly typical of how GOPers blow their victories with arrogance.  Their response the day after the debate was not to praise Romney but to deride the President in obviously racist terms.  Romney campaign co-chair Sununu said it showed that Obama is "lazy" among other slurs.

Meanwhile, in his effort to turn his aggressive debate perform into working class votes, Mitt Romney spoke again in coal country, on the day that more came out about his coal company appearance in August--not only were miners forced to attend his speech during their shift but without pay, they are coerced into contributing to Romney's campaign.  This story might not make waves in the national press, but I can guarantee that every worker in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. who hears about it won't like it one bit.

Speaking of Ohio, another victory there against voter suppression: a federal court required that Ohio restore its final weekend early voting for all its citizens.   The Ohio GOPer state government responded as PA's has done, by dragging its feet in implementation.  But the fact remains that the courts have restored all the voting rights in Ohio the GOPers tried to take away.

As for the permanent damage of the first debate, the jury is out and will be for at least a week.  The first polls that take the debate into consideration don't show much if any damage to Obama, though Romney may have gotten a boost.  Ordinarily, the first polls out next week would say more.  But now with the jobs report changing the narrative already, it's not clear how long Romney's gains, if any, would hold.  But if next week's polls show President Obama maintaining a clear lead, it probably shows what many professionals suggested even before the debate: they don't move the numbers all that much.

The Happy Liar

Update: In his column titled "Romney's Successful Debate Plan: Lying" Jonathan Chiat noted: "Romney won the debate in no small part because he adopted a policy of simply lying about his policies. Probably the best way to understand Obama’s listless performance is that he was prepared to debate the claims Romney has been making for the entire campaign, and Romney switched up and started making different and utterly bogus ones."

First Read adds: "If Romney won the instant reactions from last night’s debate, it is more than possible that the Obama camp can win the next 24 hours. Why? Because Romney said several things that could make life difficult for him today or in the next debate."

The media consensus is that Mitt Romney decisively won the first presidential debate on style points and that President Obama lost it.  That's going to drive a real frenzy of coverage over the next few days.  Perhaps it will even overwhelm the fact-checking, which will show that time after time, Romney brazenly and breezily lied--about his own proposals and about the President's. 

Within the debate's first minutes, Romney lied about his signature tax proposal, to cut taxes for the wealthy.  It was only the first of a number of etch-a-sketch moments, running away from his rabid right proposals and blithely and aggressively selling deceptions.  Unfortunately, too many of his worst lies, especially about President Obama's proposals and record, went unanswered.

But even the insta-poll showing that viewers overwhelmingly named Romney the winner also showed that his favorables did not increase, and that President Obama was rated even higher on caring about people's needs and problems.  While the clear consensus was that Romney won, there was no consensus on its effect on the race. 

It was disappointing because President Obama might have put Romney away for good with a sharp performance tonight.  It will take longer for Romney's lies to be exposed.  So now we know this race is likely to get more intense.  And we know how persuasive a liar Romney can be-- a more dangerous man than we thought.

Though it was a consensus judgment, it wasn't unanimous.  Some professional viewers just thought it was pretty boring.   Leading that chorus was Andy Borowitz:

DENVER (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Americans lost consciousness on Wednesday night between the hours of 9 and 10:30 P.M. E.T., according to widespread anecdotal reports from coast to coast.

The sudden epidemic of sleepiness prevented voters from watching more than a minute or two of the first Presidential debate between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, which the few observers who remained awake have called the most tedious in American history.

The Long Game

The first 2012 presidential debate begins in under an hour. Some of the people (or all of the people some of the time) will watch for the information on policy, some will be eager for "moments," their twitter-fingers twitching. But probably for most it's the general impression, based a little on everything (when they switch back from the ball game), that becomes most meaningful.

Because there are lots of deciders and decisions: who do I vote for? Do I vote at all? Am I confident in who I am voting for? Am I voting for the winner? Etc. It should remind us that it's more than a game. There were people waking up today realizing that their Medicaid protection, should they need it, might be gone if Romney prevails.

But yes, this is now a ritual. But it's 90 minutes of unscripted ritual, in which parts may be scripted but the whole is not. Improv.

I believe President Obama sees this as an opportunity to communicate with the American people on what he has done and what he plans to do as President.  He plays a long game, and he's more than suggested that he will be using whatever means become available to communicate and generate public support in his second term for the policies he pursues.  Of course he knows that he must deal with getting reelected, but he knows that contrasting his agenda and his understanding of the realities the country faces with Romney's is also a way of clarifying and communicating what he wants to accomplish.  He'll have an audience, and that process begins tonight.  

Debate Prep

Tons of ultimately meaningless crud has been said and written about tonight's presidential debate.  Stats and quotes from past debates (tell us nothing.  We're in Twitterverse now.  It's all up for grabs.)  Lots of unsolicited advice about what each candidate must do/should do (the most clueless of which seems to be coming from Romney's advisers, but then they're auditioning for their next job.)

A new NBC poll shows again how damaging the 47% remarks are to Romney, and everything is now being measured against them--his proposals, his taxes, his every word.  But that poll also shows that less than half of registered voters claim that the debates will have much to do with how they vote.

There are three aspects to the debates: the facts and policies the candidates talk about, the moments that get seized upon and go viral, and the overall impression that potential voters come away with.  Only the last factor really matters, and they are dependent at least a bit more on the first than the second (although seasoned pols agree that general demeanor as conveyed by the cameras counts a lot.)  Like Romney's 47% riff, a memorable moment usually feeds and supports an existing narrative or sums up a performance, though in rare cases it's a surprise, one way or another.

But there I go, adding to the noise.  Romney is going to have trouble getting away with his fact-challenged statements--he's got two people on stage that aren't going to let too many of them go by.  And he does have a problem with facts, not only his blatant lies, but his grasp of them.

Take for example his statement on the temporary ban on deporting children of illegal immigrants that President Obama ordered.  His clumsy attempt to say, well, okay, me too, got it basically wrong. Lawrence Downes in the NY Times: "To the things we already knew or suspected about Mitt Romney and his views on immigration – that he is a hard-liner prone to pandering, a bearer of platitudes, seemingly allergic to clarity or specifics – we now must add a disturbing new possibility: that he has no idea what he is talking about."   Romney talked about visas, when visas aren't involved.  At all.

Romney will have to defend numbers which don't add up, especially on his tax cuts.  He will have to defend the GOP death to Medicare and Medicaid budget, as well as his own announced health care plan which--a study revealed Tuesday--increases the number of uninsured Americans to 72 million, which is millions more than now.  Jonathan Chiat says it succinctly, and you can bet President Obama will: "The largest and clearest point of distinction in the presidential race is universal access to health insurance. If President Obama wins reelection, his law to provide access to the uninsured will go forward. If Mitt Romney is elected, it will be gutted, and Medicaid — the bare-bones coverage plan for the most desperately poor and sick — will face enormous additional cuts."

But all that is about mere reality.  Bring on the atmospherics!  Because without them, Romney is doomed.  Said best (as usual) by Andy Borowitz:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—With the first Presidential debate just two days away, G.O.P. nominee Mitt Romney has been working intensively on two skills that have eluded him throughout the campaign: talking and thinking.

Do the Vote

The most important single factor in the 2012 election is who will successfully vote.

The Obama campaign is concentrating on ground game in the swing states, and right now on early voting.  They're racking up impressive numbers in early voting but there are a lot of challenges ahead.  There's people getting complacent if they think Obama is a lock (which most people polled do.)  There's people who need to believe there is a major crisis or a messiah on the ballot in order to set their priorities to get themselves to a polling place (which in certain cities and states is actually the commitment of hours in line.)  So far the polls suggest the youth vote is just not fired up.  (Although this is comforting--Obama can do less well with college students and still meet his 08 totals.)

Then there's GOPer registration cheating, through the now discredited firm that has forced the RNC to cancel their registration drives in five swing states.  So some Dems can show up thinking they are registered when it fact their registration forms have been torn up because they checked the wrong party box.

And there's the people discouraged from even showing up, either by new GOPer voter suppression laws, or more and more, by the misinformation about the laws.  That remains a problem in the good news/bad news in the basically positive but deeply moronic court decision in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

The basic decision said that the voter suppression ID law would not be in effect for this year's election--that is, voters won't need the ID they couldn't get anyway.  But the judge inexplicably decided that election officials can still ask to see ID, even though they can't turn away anyone for not having one.  Plus the Commonwealth can still keep running TV ads telling people they need a certain kind of photo ID to vote, even though they don't. (No, this isn't the Andy Borowitz/Onion version.  This is the actual decision.)

So the question is--and in PA it won't be answered until election night--is all this confusion going to discourage people from voting?  Because much of President Obama's margin is located in areas where this could be the greatest problem--even his big polling lead may not be absolutely safe, if Dem turnout isn't heavy.

There is the theory that all the publicity and the on-the-ground activity concerning the voter suppression law has energized the Democratic base and the party apparatus, so turnout is going to be big.  The head of the PA Dems seems to think so--he sound angry, and sounds like other people are angry.  And why not?  This is a Reconstruction-style attack on their rights they can do something about.  They can do the vote. 

Meanwhile, Back on Earth...

The U.S. political campaign is involving and expressive, and it is very definitely important.  Today's Rabid Right Republicans are wrecking the potential for this country--and hence a good part of the world--to address the challenges of the future.  A Romney victory would be catastrophic, especially at this moment.

But also at this moment we are witnessing the surreal spectacle of a contest for political leadership that studiously avoids the most important issue facing the country and the planet.  Referring to the latest--and scariest--studies of fast-melting Arctic ice and what that portends, the New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert writes:

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of this development. We are now seeing changes occur in a matter of years that, in the normal geological scheme of things, should take thousands, even millions of times longer than that. On the basis of the 2012 melt season, one of the world’s leading experts on the Arctic ice cap, Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, has predicted that the Arctic Ocean will be entirely ice-free in summer by 2016. Since open water absorbs sunlight, while ice tends to reflect it, this will accelerate global warming.  Meanwhile, recent research suggests that the melting of the Arctic ice cap will have, and indeed is probably already having, a profound effect on the U.S. and Europe, making extreme weather events much more likely...

Yet, as big as the almost certainly irreversible retreat of the sea ice will figure in the future of the planet, it has attracted relatively little attention in the here and now. A study released on Thursday by Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, found that over the last few months, Representative Paul Ryan’s fitness routine—he’s a big fan of what’s known as the P90X workout plan—has received three times as much television coverage as the ice loss."

Kolbert notes how little the climate crisis has been even mentioned in the presidential campaign.  Romney brought it up in his convention acceptance speech only to mock President Obama for believing in it, and President Obama gave a stern and definite but brief rejoinder in his acceptance speech.  And that's pretty much it so far.

I expect it will come up in the debates somehow, and it will be interesting to hear what's said about it, and what impact it might have.  But it seems that politicians will be the last to confront this onrushing reality.  In Kim Stanley Robinson's climate crisis trilogy, it takes Washington D.C. being flooded for lawmakers to demand action.  I'm not sure even that would be enough in today's Washington.

But the reality is going to be harder and harder to ignore.  As Rolling Stone notes, the math of catastrophe is so daunting that it can be overwhelming, which I'm sure is at least partly why as a society we won't face it.  I have high hopes for Obama's second term, especially given his determination to marshal public support for change.  (It's forgotten now, but that's how President Kennedy forced the Senate to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.)  But as of right now, it's a sad, sad thing. 

Note that one scientist says the Arctic will be open in 2016.  That's the next presidential election.  Will anybody be able to ignore the climate crisis then? 

But I believe I've said that before.

Laugh the Vote

It bothers me that there are no big Obama songs this time. (Dancing and rapping Obamas don't count.)  That the youth vote in particular is in question.

But on the other hand, there's this video.  Samuel L. Jackson doesn't sing, but he rhymes.  Funny, yes.  And right on.

Perils of the Free Enterprise Campaign

Mitt Romney is the candidate of predatory capitalism so it is fitting that the way his campaign is organized reflects that approach.  It may be the only non-hypocritical aspect of it.  But it also may be the source of its doom.

We've learned that true to the higher management practice in predatory capitalist firms, Romney awarded generous bonuses to fellow executives of his campaign, even though they are failing.  We've also learned that he fields half the number of campaign workers than the Obama campaign does for the same amount of money, because he pays them twice as much.  It's about profit for everybody, it seems.

But the privatized and outsourced campaigning made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and embraced by the Romney campaign, apparently has the same fundamental flaws as military contractors and other privatized public functions.

It's been kind of a mystery why all the millions that his billionaire backers have chipped in haven't worked to either demonize President Obama or make the voters like Romney.  We got one answer this week when it was revealed that superpacs pay several times more than campaigns do for the same airtime for their ads.  It's a quirk (or I guess they and the Supremes would say a flaw) of the law that actual candidates get preferred rates.

But here's another factor that really rings true to me: when you privatize the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars for campaigns, the folks doing the spending may not have the candidate uppermost in their consideration.  No, like good predatory capitalists, they're fixated on Number One.

Writes Bruce Bartlett in the Fiscal Times: "Another dirty secret about independent PAC spending is that it is often guided more by what makes money for the managers than what’s best for parties and candidates. They typically direct TV advertising toward agencies they themselves own and where they get a 15 percent commission; direct mail campaigns are conducted by companies they own as well on which similar commissions are paid; polls are conducted by polling firms they own or are affiliated with; and of course the managers of PACs are paid well in the form of salaries and bonuses. Those who fund super PACs are often political neophytes who have no idea that they are being ripped off and taken advantage of."  (Hat Tip to The Dish.)

When the Campaign Will Change

How the campaign will change is unknown, but when it will change is not: on Wednesday, or Thursday at the latest.

Wednesday is the first presidential debate.  It is widely viewed as Romney's last chance.  If he is judged to do well--a judgment that the media will probably solidify by the end of Thursday--then the contest between Romney and President Obama becomes more tightly engaged.

If he is judged to have done not well enough, then the campaign changes in a different way: while the GOPers fight among themselves over whose fault Romney is, the Romney donors find other things to do with their millions.  The Obama team probably won't risk expanding the content (the issues, themes) of the campaign, but they may very well expand the playing field, by going into states that might be newly in play, and/or into states where they can help other Democratic candidates.

How well must Romney do?  There is no answer to that question that doesn't involve guessing the judgments that media will make, at least until the first polls undercut them (if they do.)  The usual reaction, as I've noted here and as others said on Friday, is if Romney does okay, there will be a big temptation to declare him back on track, the winner, etc.  "We're about a week away from the Mitt Romney comeback - or at least the Mitt Romney comeback story," writes Rick Klein. " The race can't be over yet because it's not over yet, and Romney is primed to be the beneficiary of that dynamic."

On the other hand, a bunch of pundits are on the record saying that Romney is so fundamentally screwed that only a clear victory (meaning a Romney transformation, and an Obama collapse) can alter the dynamic.

Well then, what could Romney possibly do?  There are the usual prescriptions, typically obvious and unconvincing.  But there is this--a description by Slate's Kara Brandeisky of how Romney won the governor's race in Massachusetts:  "In his gubernatorial race in 2002, Romney was trailing his Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien by 6 to 12 points in mid-October. His own polling had him 10 points behind. Romney was losing among women by 18 points... But with four weeks to go, Romney hit O’Brien with ads attacking her for $7 billion in state pension fund losses, with images of a watchdog sleeping on the job. On Nov. 5, he became Massachusetts’ Comeback Kid and won the election by 5 percent."

Does Romney have a new attack up his sleeve, with a huge ad campaign ready to go for October?  A long-planned October Surprise would explain his general lethargy and apparent disinterest in doing anything but raising money, and his characterizing late September polls as "early."

  If he has such an out of left field attack primed and ready, the place to introduce it would be at the first debate.  To catch President Obama totally by surprise.  (Of course if it is a lame and desperate charge, allowing Obama to shoot it down immediately wouldn't be helpful.)  But right now that possibility seems the last gasp for the Romney campaign.

In voter suppression and registration news:  The PA judge holding the fate of the Commonwealth's voter suppression ID law said on Thursday that he wasn't going to be issuing an injunction today.  But signs are still good that by Tuesday, he will.  Since he's following the state Supreme Court's instruction, I don't see how an appeal is even possible if he does. 

But the big story on the voter fraud front is just beginning:  fraud in Florida conducted by a company working for the Republican party in that state and other battleground states, as well as the RNC.  It started in one county of Florida and now involves nine or ten.  Falsifying GOPer registrations is the charge.  Stay tuned for this getting bigger next week.

And while Florida had successfully stifled voter registration drives, the Obama campaign has been very successful in registering new voters in North Carolina.  They've registered a quarter of a million new voters in a state that Obama won in 2008 by 14,000 votes. 

The next poll I'm really interested in seeing is the Massachusetts Senate race.  Scott Brown seems to have risked everything with his racist attack on Elizabeth Warren--he's refused to apologize in response to the Cherokee Nation statement and he's released a second attack ad.  The next debate is Monday.  How has this attack affected the race?  My feeling for that particular Commonwealth is based on my residence many years ago now, but while I recognize completely the smug and vicious racism that existed in certain Boston neighborhoods (and Cambridge households) more strongly than any place else I've personally encountered, I can't believe that the state as a whole is going to respond well to Brown now.

The 47%

You've heard the words and seen Mitt Romney saying them.  Now hear them again with images of the 47% they are about.  This is the ad that the politicos were talking about on Thursday as the clincher.

Economic Patriotism

As voters line up for early voting in Iowa, President Obama talks for two minutes about his plan for economic patriotism.

Uncontrolled Damage

Some campaign questions have been answered.  Do conventions really change anything?  Most professionals said no, but the evidence is that this year they did.  Was the Obama bounce just a bounce?  Maybe, but Romney errors came on so quickly that it's uncertain why, but the bounce clearly became a trend.

How damaging were Romney's 47% remarks?  On Wednesday the first polls taken since then show: very.  Not just the widening leads President Obama shows in the New York Times poll and the Washington Post poll, and even the Gallup tracking poll, but within the polls, to the questions specifically about those remarks.  In general they show that a lot of people are aware of them, and most people did not like them.

What they also reveal is that Romney's core support is down to about a third of likely voters.  So that's the next big question to be answered: is the Obama lead going to settle back down or keep growing?  An item repeated in various political precincts on Wednesday was that the Obama campaign was exploring the possibility of spending some resources on Arizona, where internal polls show a much closer race, though with Romney still slightly ahead.  Arizona has been considered a safe Romney state.  Is Arizona in play?  Are there other states outside the "battleground" that are now within reason for Obama?  If so, the House may also be in play (And Nancy Pelosi makes a good argument that it is anyway.)

Then of course the next big question is: will the debates matter?  In general, the professionals are again saying that debates don't change things.  But that's what they said about conventions.

The Romney campaign is pinning its remaining hopes on the first one.  After his Ohio swing, Romney goes back to not campaigning and reportedly preparing for the debate.  President Obama has scheduled weekend debate prep, but what he really seems to need is some rest.  He's starting to look ragged out there.  If he's rested and relaxed, he'll handle Romney.

Charles Blow adds a few other questions to be answered, which I've also mentioned here before, but since he's a New York Times columnist and I'm not, it's probably worth noting that he asks them: the extent to which voter suppression works and how many of these likely voters are unlikely to be allowed to vote; the media's need to have a different narrative, a turnaround for Romney that could be declared on the slightest pretext: "The media loves a comeback." 

He also mentions the external events that could change the trajectory, but those aren't unanswered questions, they are just potent possibilities. Still, just how steep a hill Romney has to climb just to become relevant becomes clearer every day.  Remember that President Obama won handily in 2008 with a majority of popular votes, but numbers as we're seeing in the swing states--up to 54%--are extraordinary.  But there is that possibility that we'll know more about in the coming week: you ain't seen nothing yet.

"Clearly She's Not" Continued

Statement of the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation regarding MA Senator Scott Brown and his staff:

"The Cherokee Nation is disappointed in and denounces the disrespectful actions of staffers and supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. The conduct of these individuals goes far beyond what is appropriate and proper in political discourse. The use of stereotypical 'war whoop chants' and 'tomahawk chops' are offensive and downright racist," said Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, in a statement. "The individuals involved in this unfortunate incident are high ranking staffers in both the senate office and the Brown campaign. A campaign that would allow and condone such offensive and racist behavior must be called to task for their actions."

"The Cherokee Nation is a modern, productive society, and I am blessed to be their chief. I will not be silent when individuals mock and insult our people and our great nation," Baker said. "We need individuals in the United States Senate who respect Native Americans and have an understanding of tribal issues. For that reason, I call upon Sen. Brown to apologize for the offensive actions of his staff and their uneducated, unenlightened and racist portrayal of Native peoples."

Gilligan, "The Stench" and Other Campaign 2012 News

This morning a New York Times/CBS poll shows President Obama widening his lead in the swing states of Ohio and Florida--and well above 50% in both.

President Obama leads in Ohio among likely voters by 10 points, 53-43, and in Florida by 9, 53-44.  In PA he is at 54% to Romney's 42. President Obama has added older voters to the groups he is winning.

Late Tuesday another national poll showed President Obama holding his lead of 6 points, and now beating Romney on handling of the economy by 9 points.  Other battleground state polls in the past two days  haven't changed the trajectory, with Obama holding or extending his leads.  The pressure on the Romneyryan campaign is reportedly now dividing Romney from Ryan.  Romney snapped an answer to 60 Minutes on the Ryan Kill Medicare plan that he was the presidential candidate, not Ryan.  Now there's this Politico report that among his staffers Ryan has fairly openly been referring to Romney as "The Stench," and after being booed at AARP, has decided to go rogue.  Meanwhile, Romney staffers reportedly call Ryan "Gilligan." 

Update: The Politico report referenced above was by Roger Simon, who now claims it was meant to be satiric--that is, it did not happen.  Simon needs a few lessons in writing satire, and it's unlikely that anything he writes in future that has the hint of levity in it will be taken at face value.  However, the Romney distancing himself from Ryan is true, and he has since had to instruct a crowd chanting "Ryan Ryan" that the words to the song were actually "Romneyryan."  Which is so close to satire itself that it's clear why the Simon story was believed.

There's also more evidence that the millions being spent by and for Romney are not having the desired effect.  Also that the Obama campaign has twice as many staffers on the ground than Romney, though both are spending pretty much the same amount.

Josh Marshall writes that the latest polls show that Ohio may be a done deal for President Obama.  Two other observers agree, noting that the Romneyryan bus tours this week must "move the needle" or it's over.  Without Ohio, Romney doesn't have much of a chance.  Early voting begins there next week.

 What we can actually say about all of this is that the Obama bounce is now a solid Obama lead.  If things continue as they are going, Romney is toast, big time.  But I won't be comfortable with the lead until a few days after the first debate.  It's Romney's last chance to change the game himself.  It's highly unlikely he will, but one way he might is by giving totally unexpected answers, becoming the ultimate etch-a-sketch candidate.  Even then it would depend on how adroitly President Obama handles it.  But realistically, the polls show his negatives have hardened.  Switching positions would play into what people already think about him.

In voter suppression news, it now looks more likely that by the end of the week, the Pennsylvania voter suppression law may be null and void. (The NYT poll has Obama up by 12 points in PA.)  However, the Florida situation is so screwed up now that I fear Latino voting will be greatly suppressed.  Fortunately, President Obama has more paths to winning that don't depend on Florida, though he may still win it by a margin well under what the polls suggest.

On Ohio and other midwestern states, a survey of white working class voters (made in August before the conventions) shows that President Obama even then was holding his own or doing better in all regions except the South.  This is largely due to white working class women.  This study also shows that outside the South the white working class is not all in the tank for the Tea Party and doesn't vote on the basis of "social issues."  However, racial appeals of the type we're seeing from GOPers do have some resonance.  (Graph from Mother Jones.)

What happens in the campaign from now on is less consequential due to the spread of early voting, which this year could mean that a third of votes are cast before election day.  It's begun in Iowa, and the Obama campaign has been on it:

For months, staffers and volunteers at the Obama campaign’s more than five dozen Iowa field office have worked relentlessly to encourage Democrats to request absentee ballots, which any registered voter in the state is allowed to fill out and submit before the polls open officially in six weeks.
As of Monday, registered Democrats had requested 109,709 such ballots in Iowa, while Republicans there had requested less than one-fifth of that total (20,458).

The extremism of GOPer Senate candidates in Missouri and Wisconsin (where a tape has surfaced of Tommy Thompson saying he would end Medicare and Medicaid) also make it more likely that Dems will hold the Senate, though regaining the House remains a mathematical stretch.

With Eyes on the Future

Excerpts from President Obama's speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, that Joe Klein at Time called a "masterful address:"

"The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this. Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights. That’s why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict. That is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War. And that is the lesson of the last two decades as well. History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices."

As for the Israel/Iran/U.S. situation, the New York Times has this admirable summary.

Racism in 2012: "Clearly she's not"

This is Republican Senator Scott Brown.  He's running for reelection to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.  Several times in his first debate with the Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Warren, he attacked her for claiming "she was a Native American, and clearly she's not."

 So Scott Brown is an expert on who and who is not Native American.  He can tell just by looking.

This is Elizabeth Warren.  As you can see, she's as white as the pure driven snow.  Can't possibly be of Native American heritage.  Apart from no feathers and buckskin, she's clearly white.  Clearly.

Oh wait.  That isn't Elizabeth Warren.  It's Louise Erdrich.  She's the author of more than 20 books: novels, short stories, poetry, non-fiction, many of them about Native Americans.  She was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2009.  She's universally known as a Native American author.  She is the daughter of Ralph Erdrich, a German-American, and Rita Gourneau, whose father served as tribal chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.  Louise is an enrolled member of that band. 

This is Elizabeth Warren.  She grew up in Oklahoma (where Cherokee and Delaware Indians were among those relocated in the Trail of Tears), and was told as a child that her parents had to elope because her father's family was wary of her mother's family having Cherokee and Delaware ancestry.  No documents have yet surfaced that trace this ancestry, but that doesn't prove it isn't so.  Warren noted her ancestry on a few registries but says--and all her employers agree--she never called herself Native American on an application. 

There are a whole lot of issues and tons of disagreement within American Indian communities over who is and who isn't entitled to call themselves Indian.  But there is little or no disagreement that how you look--how white you look-- is no guide at all.  There are very few American Indians who don't have a European ancestor, and many have several.

Some Native leaders I know tend to see this in cultural rather than racial terms. It is all very complicated.  But the point here is that claiming that Elizabeth Warren "clearly" is not Native American based on how she looks is ignorant at best, and racist in its implication.  Yes, you can be blue-eyed and blond and be Native American.

Rachel Maddow did a story on this, and though she got Melissa Harris-Perry to talk about race as a cultural construct, they never got to the racist heart of this.  Yes, claiming that Elizabeth Warren is too white to be Native American--and therefore she is a liar, and has lied for personal advantage because claiming this racial heritage got her special privileges--is just a different version of the racism that Republicans are attempting to use in the 2012 campaign.  It's all about us and them, and creating racial divides.

But to assume that everyone white will agree that "clearly" she's not Native American is racism that's proud of itself, proud of its ignorance.  In 2012.  Unbelievable.  I wouldn't vote for this man for any public office.

Update: And just to make the racism here very clear, this video of Brown staffers at a rally ridiculing Native peoples has emerged.  These Republicans are ignorant and despicable.

Racism in 2012: Lazy

Lazy, shiftless, don't want to work.  It's been what the well-off like to say about the less well-off for a long time.  It's said of identifiable minorities most often, including white ethnics, or just "white trash."  But it is most often said (even or especially by those white ethnics) of racial minorities--principally African American, but also Latino--especially Mexican.

Lazy blacks, lazy Mexicans with their siestas--all part of the racial stereotypes.  Those stereotypes have often been used politically to deny them equal rights.  Being disadvantaged by virtue of policies that went hand in hand with such stereotypes led to new policies that get bunched together under the name of "affirmative action."

But the idea of affirmative action was quickly turned into a new name for taking advantage of race--a form of injustice, and of laziness.  In 2012 this attitude has been exploited through the GOPer primaries, notably in Newt Gingrich's culture of dependence, and the food stamp president.  It blew apart the current general election campaign by being so baldly and boldly stated in those Mitt Romney remarks in the notorious fundraising recording.   There the language was of dependence and feeling justified in dependence by feeling like a "victim."

But the actual vocabulary of laziness has recently emerged in a new context: justifying the GOPer state voter suppression laws, particularly voter ID.

It arose in Pennsylvania in the radio interview I quoted, when state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe said: "I don’t believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors’ hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can’t fix that."

On Monday this was echoed in another state with a voter ID law currently in litigation: South Carolina.  A TPM reporter wrote: "A lawyer for South Carolina said on Monday there are plenty of reasons voters would be able to sidestep the state’s voter ID law if a panel of federal judges allows it to take effect this year, but laziness is not among them."  To be fair, the reporter doesn't quote the lawyer as using the word "lazy," but his statement implied it.

Let's put aside for a moment that obtaining the kind of IDs these states require often means that eligible voters must spend money and lose money from taking time off work in order to prevent the state from taking away their voting rights.  Let's instead think for a moment about the burden of responsibility here.  The state has imposed a barrier to voting, with no actual justification--they haven't come close to proving that a problem exists, or that remedy actually addresses such a problem. But they've added a new requirement anyway.  And so it becomes the fault of eligible voters if their voting rights are violated.

Yes, if those black folks weren't so lazy they could learn to pass the literacy test, and make enough money to pay the poll tax. 

Historically these efforts were used to prevent black Americans from voting.  And sure enough the result of these laws has been widely forecast as preventing black Americans from voting.

But now there's evidence that the impact may be even greater in preventing or discouraging Latino voters from voting.  As many as ten million, or half the eligible voters.  Voter suppression efforts through demanding proof of citizenship just to register have been going on all year and continue in Florida.  According to this study, the effect may be enough to flip the state.

But it's more than politics.  It's racism, once again institutionalized.  In 2012.

If The Election Were Held Today...

The thing is, it is.  That is, it's starting to be held all over the country this week with early voting opening.  Soon half the states will be voting.

If lots of people vote now (avoid the rush!) then today's polls really count.  And changes in the race from now on have to be big to swing enough votes to make a difference.

The change that's being registered in the first of today's polls is basically that things are getting worse for Romney, particularly with his core group of older voters.The Reuters/Ipsos poll  "indicates that during the past two weeks -- since just after the Democratic National Convention -- support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over President Obama to less than 4 points....Romney's double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare -- the nation's health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled -- also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas."  (Hat tip to Political Wire for isolating these quotes.)

A Gallup poll of 12 swing states confirms that President Obama is trusted more to handle Medicare by a 50% to 44% margin.  Nationally on this issue President Obama leads 51%-43%.

In this respect, Andy Borowitz's comic press release seems especially appropriate:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—With just forty-three days to go until the election, Mitt Romney is in a race against time to offend the few voters he has not already alienated, his campaign manager said today.
“So far, Mitt’s efforts to make voters dislike him have gone exactly as planned,” said the campaign manager Matt Rhoades. “But let’s not kid ourselves—we’ve still got a few supporters out there and we’ve got to find ways to piss them off.”


On Sunday the TPM Electoral Scoreboard moved to Obama 313, Romney 191.