We know you’re sick of politics and you would like to give it a rest for a while. But Michael Tomasky’s post, “The Obama Coalition in the Off Years” at The Daily Beast has one of the best ideas yet for the mid-term elections, and you should check it out before it fades off the political radar screen. Noting that 2012 voter turnout was near 60 percent, Tomasky explains:

Some rich liberals need to fund a public-education group that will work full-time to make sure the liberal blocs and constituencies come out and vote in off-year elections…And off-year turnout is down around 40 percent. The 20 percent who leave the system are almost entirely Democrats. This has been true all my life. It’s basically because old people always vote, and I guess old white people vote more than other old people, and old white people tend to be Republican. So even when white American isn’t enraged as it was in 2010, midterms often benefit Republicans.

Conceding the exceptions of ’98 and ’06, Tomasky continues,

As long as this is true, the country’s progressive coalition will spend forever taking one step forward in presidential years, and one step back in off years. But imagine if the Obama coalition had voted, even in decent numbers, in 2010. The Democrats might still well have the House.
If liberal blocs can be conditioned in a generation’s time to vote in every federal election, well, combine that with what we know to be the coming demographic changes, and the electoral pressure on Republicans would be constant and enormous. The Republican white voting pool has limits, so the GOP would have to compete even harder for brown and black votes, which would pull our politics even more to the left.
A long-term project along these lines would be $20 million (or whatever) very well spent for some rich liberal who cares about changing the country.

Tomasky’s idea has added appeal, considering that in 2014 an unusually high number of Democratic senators will be up for re-election in red and swing states (6 for each). As for the House, Cameron Joseph notes at The Hill:

On the House side, while Democrats will have some opportunities at districts they missed out on in California and elsewhere, heavily gerrymandered GOP maps in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and North Carolina will continue to limit their opportunities.
Democrats tend to live in more urban areas, concentrating their votes into fewer congressional districts, and legally required “majority-minority” districts further pack Democrats into a few districts and make nearby districts more safely Republican.
According to a recent study by the Center for Voting and Democracy, Democrats start off with 166 safe districts while Republicans start off with 195. There are only 74 true swing districts where the presidential candidates won between 46 and 54 percent of the popular vote, down from 89 before redistricting.
That means the GOP needs to win less than one-third of competitive House seats to stay in control — something that shouldn’t be too hard to accomplish, barring a huge Democratic wave. In a politically neutral year Democrats are likely to have around 203 seats, a number that’s only slightly higher than the number they’ll have once the remaining 2012 races are called.

In addition, it’s just possible that some of the creative GOTV techniques Dems deployed so successfully this year could be transferable to the 2014 mid-terms. In any case, meeting the challenge of making the next mid-term electorate resemble this year’s general election demographics could help insure that progressive change replaces continued gridlock and stagnation.

Lots of buzz about Nate Silver accurately predicting the electoral vote allocation of all nine battleground states, as well as the other 41 states. At the moment he also is on target for the popular vote percentage spread, which may change a little when all of the votes are finally tallied.
Mark Blumenthal has a compelling wrap up explaining how the serious pollsters and poll analysts way outperformed the poll skeptics, including the confident but clueless Peggy Noonan, who wrote on Monday, “While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. …I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled.”
Noam N. Levey has an encouraging L.A. Times post explaining that “Obama’s win means his healthcare law will insure all Americans.” Levy says “Starting in 2014, millions of Americans should be able to get health insurance for the first time. Millions more who don’t get coverage through work should be able to buy a health plan that meets new basic standards. Critical GOP state leaders “must decide in days whether to implement it or have the federal government do it for them.”
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, on Tuesday Dems gained upcoming control of five state legislatures (CO, MN, NY, OR and ME), while the GOP gained control of three (AK, WI and AR), with NH not yet decided. Republicans will have control (both/all houses) of 23 state legislatures, while Dems will control both houses in 14 states, with 12 split. Reuters reports: “Heading into the election, Republicans filled almost 55 percent of all partisan legislative seats and controlled 59 legislative chambers, while Democrats controlled 36 chambers and three were tied.” Most of the governorships, lieutenant governorships, secretaries of state and half of the nation’s attorneys general are still held by Republicans.
It will be interesting to see what California Democrats can do with a supermajority (two-thirds) in the state senate, while nearing the two-thirds threshold in the state assembly. CA may once again become a model for progressive government, however tempered by formidable economic and immigration problems. As AP’s Don Thompson writes, “If Democrats win two-thirds majorities in both chambers, it would be the first time since 1933 that one party held simultaneous supermajorities.”
An AP/Edison Research exit poll in VA shows half of state voters favoring tax hikes on those earning $250K+ and two-thirds “favored keeping abortion legal in most or all cases.”
At PBS NewsHour, Judy Woodruff has a revealing interview about the presidential campaign strategy and tactics with WaPo’s Phillip Rucker, WSJ’s Carol Lee and Slate.com’s Sasha Issenberg, author of the much-buzzed “The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.”
At the National Journal, Beth Reinhard’s post-mortem credits President Obama with doing an excellent job of making the election more about Romney’s character than Obama’s track record. “President Obama won his first term by being the right guy at the right time. He won his second term making Mitt Romney the wrong guy…Obama turned what could have been a stinging referendum on his economic stewardship into a pass-fail test on Romney’s character.” It was a potent meme, but Romney (and most of the pundits also underestimated the nation’s demographic transition since ’08.
Kyle Scott opines at the Houston Chronicle that “Obama won by saying yes to more Americans.” Says Scott: “President Barack Obama’s victory was secured by a politics of yes. Telling voters yes is essential to victory since most voters do not like to be told no. The key to political victory is figuring out how to tell the most people yes and the fewest people no. The president secured a second term by successfully employing this strategy.” It’s an appealing notion, but it doesn’t help to explain the collective outcome of the House races — unless Dems just didn’t have enough strong “yes” candidates.
The “Ya Think?” award for headline writing should probably go to the Washington Post for “Long voting lines suggest a need for reform.” It’s a good editorial, though.

Nate Silver forecasts that President Obama is on track to win 307 electoral votes in light of the latest polling data, cites 13 latest major polls, none of which show Romney ahead in the nation-wide popular vote. Only one shows a 1 point gain for Romney (Battleground Politico) to a tie in the popular vote nationwide (two others show a tie, Rasmussen and CNN).
At HuffPo Pollster Mark Blumenthal writes: “In all, HuffPost Pollster has entered over 120 new statewide polls into our database over the past week, most in the closely contested battlegrounds. This new data has done little to alter the overall polling snapshot, which continues to favor Obama in contested states like Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa and Ohio by margins of 2 to 4 percentage points. The electoral votes from these four states, combined with those from other states where Obama leads Romney by wider margins, would give the President 277 electoral votes, just over the 270 need to win.”
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes has an illuminating interview with Slate.com’s Sasha Issenberg on the Obama campaign’s edge in the front porch campaign and high tech GOTV.
Silver explains “Romney’s Reason to Play for Pennsylvania.” Silver says “Given the number of unappealing options for Mr. Romney, however, it may be worth a try. Pennsylvania still ranks seventh on the FiveThirtyEight list of tipping-point states — and that is without considering the mechanics of early voting. Pennsylvania has little early voting, meaning that a larger share of the vote there is still in play.” But Democratic strategist Bob Shrum says Pennsylvania is always fool`s gold for the Republicans.”
National Journal’s Hotline on Call’s staff update sees it this way: “Depending who you ask, Romney’s decision to visit to Pennsylvania within 48 hours of Election Day speaks to one of two beliefs: That the state is seriously in play and must be contested, or that Ohio has slipped away and a last-minute map expansion is necessary to keep Romney’s electoral hopes alive. It may be a little of both…But the location of Romney’s rally is notable: In targeting the vote-rich suburbs of Philadelphia in eastern Pennsylvania — rather than the blue collar areas around Pittsburgh on the state’s west side…”
At Alternet, Lynn Stuart Parramore’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: The Gender Gap Still Favors Obama, Big-time” is a good rebuttal to Romney campaign spin about their momentum with women voters. Parramore cites recent polls showing Obama with a 17 percent edge with Virginia women and a 12 percent gender gap in Ohio.
Sahil Kapur reports at Talking Points Memo on the emerging Republican whine, “It’s Sandy’s fault.”
Politicians should note that the highest-turnout constituency, seniors, has definitely gone digital. According to a survey by the Pew Internet Project, in 2012 — for the first time — more than half of all those age 65 or older are online, and over a third are active in social networking. More than two-thirds of them now have cell phones, including 13 percent with smartphones.
Jamelle Bouie explains at The American Prospect why you shouldn’t worry so much about “the undecideds.”
In her Huffpo post “Don’t Be Fooled by a Moderate Mitt ,” Jane White has the relevant statistics which show which party is the sworn enemy of bipartisanship: “And when it comes to gridlock on Capitol Hill, the finger of blame points squarely at the GOP. While one of Romney’s ads blames Obama for not reaching out to work with congressional Republicans, it’s the Republicans Congress that has racked up the highest number of filibusters in American history. During Obama’s first term there were 246 cloture motions filed to end Republican filibusters compared to 133 during Dubya’s first term. Not even a handful of “sensible” Republicans had the guts to break ranks and vote with the Democrats.”
How much longer will Florida voters put up with Governor Scott’s disgusting restrictions on early voting? Here’s an update on the outrage in Florida, and the lawsuit to stop it.
At the Princeton Election Consortium, Sam Wang has a nifty “Election Night Scenario tracking Tool.”
Washington Post Outlook is running a Crystal Ball contest predicting the electoral vote outcome, with an eclectic group of 13 pundits. Some of the more interesting predictions: Chris Cillizza – Obama 277 EVs; Mad Money’s Jim Kramer – Obama 440 EVs; National Journal’s Hotline Editor Reid Wilson – Obama 294 EVs. A meteorologist, poker player and a Mclean, VA high school also weigh in. 11 of 13 pick Obama to win the electoral college vote.

UAW President Bob King weighs in with a USA Today op-ed, “Romney’s auto mess shows he is not ready.” Says King: “This is the real Romney, a man who objected to the rescue of the domestic auto industry, then made astronomical profits after his business partners threatened the survival of GM. A man who lies about Chrysler moving jobs to China, when his history at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, shows that he has invested in Chinese factories where workers are grossly exploited. Romney won’t even act to stop the Sensata factory in Illinois, in which he is an investor, from closing the doors and moving to China the day before the election…That is the picture of a me-first hedge-fund investor, not someone who has the judgment or character to be President of the United States.”
What the final skeds of the presidential candidates say about their closing strategies.
Jennifer Steinhauer of NYT’s ‘The Caucus’ flags “10 House Races to Watch,” noting “While there are more than 10 competitive races, some of them even closer than the ones we have listed list here, these House races are 10 worth watching.” They are: CA 15 and 36; CO 6; FL 18; IL 17; IA 3; GA 12; MA 6; NY 27; and UT 4.
At the Crystal Ball, Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik are more confident that Dems will hold the senate than the white house.
But Robert Schlesinger reports at U.S. News that Nate Silver estimates at this point about 294+ electoral votes for Obama, while other forecasters also see an E.V. edge for Obama: “The Princeton Election Consortium, run by Professor Sam Wang, projects Obama pulling in 303 electoral votes, for example; Votamatic, which is run by Drew Linzer, a professor at Emory and Stanford, predicts 332 electoral votes for Obama; Real Clear Politics’s “No Toss Up States” map gives Obama 281 electoral votes. (Huffington Post’s Pollster.com gives Obama a base of 253 electoral votes and leads in five of toss-up states as compared with 206 electoral votes and a single toss-up state lead for Romney.) And the major online betting markets all give Obama pretty good odds of re-election (Intrade puts it at 63.3 percent chance, and Betfair says 68 percent).”
WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. explains why Democrats will remain the more pro-compromise party: “To hold their Senate majority, Democrats need to keep winning in smaller and rural states that lean Republican. Republicans almost everywhere — Brown is the exception — now live in fear of losing primaries to tea party candidates such as Mourdock…Thus is compromise on the ballot next week. But only one side seems genuinely interested in reaching it.”
But the latest Associated Press-GfK poll indicates “Almost half of likely voters, 47 percent, think the Republican challenger would be better at ending the logjam, compared with 37 percent for Obama.” Further, “about 1 out of 6 likely voters didn’t take a side on the gridlock issue: 6 percent weren’t sure who would do a better job at getting Washington moving and 10 percent didn’t trust either man to break the impasse among congressional partisans.”
Steve Bousquet of the Tampa Bay Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau notes the rather sudden disappearance of FL Gov. Rick Scott from Romney campaign events and quotes Republican political scientist Darryl Paulson: “I think it is prudent to stay arm’s length from anyone in the party who might alienate the few undecided voters who are left.”
At The Daily Beast Michael Tomasky has some good tips for President Obama in the closing days of the election, including: “Florida? Let Joe Biden and Bill Clinton take care of south Florida. The alter kockers are more their crowd. Obama needs to hit the I-4 corridor, where the white swing voters and the Puerto Ricans (and plenty enough African Americans) live, with a huge weekend rally, probably in Tampa. He carried Tampa’s Hillsborough County 50-48 last time, and if he can replicate that, he has a shot at Florida, which would crush Romney.”
Andy Kroll reports at Mother Jones on MoveOn’s use of 12 million “voter report cards” in battleground states, grading voters on how often they have voted in the past — and comparing their grade with the average of their neighbors. The technique is credited with helping Democrat Michael Bennet win in the 2010 Senate race in Colorado.

Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog post, “Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked” finds a common denominator in recent endorsements of Romney:

…In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!
That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney.
Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”

Klein says that The Register argues that President Obama has abandoned bipartisanship, while crediting Romney with bipartisanship as Governor of Massachusetts — despite the fact that Obama “spent most of 2011 negotiating with John Boehner.” He notes a similar argument in the Orlando Sentinel endorsement of Romney and cites David Brooks’ Romney endorsement being based on a greater likelihood that the Republican would have a better chance of securing bipartisan cooperation.
Klein recalls Republican statements citing the defeat of President Obama as the mother of all GOP priorities but adds,

While it’s true that President Romney could expect more cooperation from congressional Republicans, in the long term, a vote against Obama on these grounds is a vote for more of this kind of gridlock. Politicians do what wins them elections. If this strategy wins Republicans the election, they’ll employ it next time they face a Democratic president, too, and congressional Democrats will use it against the next Republicans. Rewarding the minority for doing everything in their power to make the majority fail sets up disastrous incentives for the political system.

Klein is right that the strategy worked in securing some ill-considered endorsements for Romney. Yet, a vote for Romney is a vote to institutionalize political extortion as the new driving wheel of American politics. “We care less about enacting any policies that benefit the American people than defeating a Democratic president” is a pretty infantile approach to political deliberation.
Voters who want a return to some semblance of bipartisan cooperation would be far wiser not to reward the perpetrators of political extortion, the party of Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis. Giving them a sound thrashing up and down ballot would more likely accomplish that goal.

In his Washington Post article, “Hurricane Sandy highlights how Obama and Romney respond to disasters,” Ed O’Keefe describes the President’s course of action addressing frankenstorm Sandy:

…Obama has signed at least nine federal emergency disaster declarations in the past 24 hours at the request of state governors, directing FEMA to deploy more resources in anticipation of significant recovery efforts. He canceled campaign stops for Monday and Tuesday to return to the White House to oversee the federal government’s evolving storm response.
…Obama campaigned four years ago on a promise to revamp the federal government’s disaster-response functions and has embraced changes long sought by state governors and professional emergency managers. Since becoming president, he has led the federal response to multiple natural disasters, including tornadoes, flooding and major hurricanes, learning from government stumbles during the presidency of George W. Bush — most notably in the case of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Obama’s posture has been to order federal agencies to aggressively prepare for and respond to major storms and other disasters.

It’s a portrait of a president leaving no task unmet. O’Keefe sees “a moment of sharp contrast between President Obama and Mitt Romney and how their different ideas of governing apply to the federal response to large-scale disasters.” O’Keefe adds that “Obama has been aggressive about bolstering the federal government’s capability to respond to disasters, while his Republican challenger believes that states should be the primary responders in such situations and has suggested that disaster response could be privatized.” Further,

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney requested federal disaster assistance for storm cleanup, and he has toured storm-ravaged communities as a presidential candidate, but he has agreed with some who suggest that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could be dissolved as part of budget cuts.
When moderator John King suggested during a June 2011 CNN debate that federal disaster response could be curtailed to save federal dollars, Romney said: “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.”

At the time, Romney didn’t have much to say about, ahem, how states should work together when a natural disaster overlaps state borders, as they most always do. But in the Romney campaign’s partial walkback statement, we get this:

“Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”

Which is pretty much how the system works, as O’Keefe points out. He adds that the Romney campaign is also collecting supplies for the storm’s victims, which FEMA says is not such a good idea in the earliest part of the relief effort, because cash and blood donations are more urgently needed and donated supplies can cause logistical bottlenecks too early on.
After President Bush botched the Hurricane Katrina relief effort the agency has undergone major restructuring and reorganization under the leadership of President Obama and FEMA administrator Carl Fugate, as O’Keefe explains:

Fugate and Obama have earned praise for restoring the agency’s reputation in the years since Katrina. Despite working for then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as head of the state’s emergency agency, Fugate said he rebuffed overtures from George W. Bush to lead FEMA after Katrina, saying that the GOP administration did not want to rebuild the agency in the fashion since embraced by Obama.

O’Keefe adds that “Fugate has batted away questions before about possible privatization of his agency: “I’m too busy working on other stuff. Ask that to somebody who would give you the time and day to answer that,” he said in a 2011 interview. O’Keefe notes that Obama’s FEMA reforms have “earned plaudits from then-Gov. Haley Barbour (R) of Mississippi and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) of Louisiana — usually tough Obama critics — and professional emergency managers who had sought the changes for years.” O’Keefe concludes with a quote recalling Bush’s ‘Heckuvajob Brownie” mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina relief:

Obama’s changes at FEMA “have been night and day” compared with those under previous administrations, according to one veteran emergency manager who was not authorized to speak publicly for fear of jeopardizing federal disaster grant requests. “I don’t know who will be the next president, but they can’t put a political hack in the job of leading FEMA ever again.”

Some may protest that it’s unseemly to call attention to the differing approaches of the candidates in a time of national emergency, when Americans should be pulling together. But lives are at stake and it’s important that voters pay attention to the management philosophies and track records of the two candidates in addressing major disasters. This is a matter of national security as much as any foreign policy issue.
What voters are left with is an image of Romney posturing his ideologically-extravagant privatization schema and federal government-bashing, and a more grounded and experienced President Obama taking care of business. My hunch is that the clear distinction will not be lost on observant swing voters.

As the northeast braces for Frankenstorm Sandy, it’s worth flagging this Think Progress post, “Mitt Romney: Federal Disaster Relief For Tornado And Flood Victims Is ‘Immoral,’ ‘Makes No Sense At All‘ by Brad Johnson.
Might be a little surprise a-brewing in the Tar-Heel state, reports Jason Easely at PoliticusUSA.
Maddow busts MTP host’s defense of the GOP’s rape dodge.
CNN’s Tom Cohen reports on a couple of potential ‘spoilers’ who are making the Romney campaign a little nervous.
The Economist has an insightful update on the presidential campaign ‘air war,’ noting, “From late April, when Mr Romney clinched the Republican nomination, until October 21st, Mr Obama and his allies spent $275m on advertising to the Romney camp’s $319m, according to the Wesleyan Project…What is more, those figures understate Mr Obama’s presence on the airwaves, since his money went further. He and his allies aired 521,675 ads, according to the project’s tally, to 469,539 for Mr Romney. That is partly because the Obama campaign booked its ads earlier, locking in cheaper rates. What is more, campaigns themselves, as opposed to parties or other outsiders advertising on a candidate’s behalf, are entitled to cheaper rates by law. So the fact that roughly half of the spending in favour of Mr Romney comes from independent outfits such as American Crossroads and Restore Our Future is something of a handicap.”
Liz Kennedy reports at Demos on the overwhelming bipartisan majority opposed to corporate political spending and favoring reforms.
Please, Republicans, unleash Sununu some more — he provides a marvelous poster-boy for Republican values. Heck, maybe also show some re-runs of the Trump endorsement, inter-weaved with footage of his latest birther drivel. Very classy.
Why serious (non-clown) business leaders prefer President Obama.
In similar vein, 100 top CEO’s have called for (gasp!) tax hikes, reports Rick Newman at US News.
The Daily Beast Salutes “America’s Greenest Politicians” — and the 24 elected officials chosen include zero Republicans.

This likening of ‘Moderate Mitt’ Romney to a “neo-con Trojan Horse” is right on target. Robert Parry of Consortium News clarifies what a Romney presidency would mean: “Though Romney’s goal in Monday’s foreign policy debate was to downplay his warlike neoconservative stands, his reference to the Syrian chaos as “an opportunity” suggests that his more moderate rhetoric is just another ploy to deceive voters…In that sense, the new “moderate Mitt” is less a sign of a neocon retreat from his earlier bellicosity than a Trojan Horse to be wheeled onto the White House grounds on Jan. 20, 2013, so the neocons can pour forth from its hollowed-out belly and regain full control of U.S. foreign policy.”
Republican Richard Mourdock’s fiasco transforms the U.S. Senate race in Indiana into the “pure toss-up” category, according to The Rothernberg Political Report.
At the Daily Beast John Avlon ponders “Obama’s Risky Demographic Gamble,” and wonders if the president’s campaign has bet too much on his edge with Latinos. But TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira says otherwise in Avlon’s post: “I think they’ve made an appropriate level of bet on changing demographics…They would have been foolish not to try and mobilize this growing segment of voters … They’ve made effective outreach to non-college-educated white voters in Ohio, and if Obama’s lost ground with white voters in Colorado–and clearly he has–it makes perfect sense to try and engage these emerging demographics. Also, a lot of these polls are under-sampling minorities and we’re not exactly sure what that means.”
WaPo’s Dan Eggen reports that the Romney campaign is spending more for ads, but the Obama campaign has more battleground state ads running in October — so far.
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin reports that the Obama campaign is focusing most intensely on five of the nine battleground states: “When pressed, the Obama officials with whom I met said that five of the nine stand out: Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. In that quintet, Democrats believe the combination of their current leads in polling, early voting (where applicable), and ground game makes their chances of winning even greater there than in the other four.”
Ezra Klein has an interesting Wonkblog post on campaign messaging, aptly boiled-down in his title, “Mitt Romney wants Republicans confident, President Obama wants Democrats scared.”
At The New York Times Katharine Q. Seelye reports on the battle for a crucial swing demographic group, white ‘waitress moms.’ Seelye notes that “About 9 percent of all voters in 2008 were white women without college degrees who had an annual household income of less than $50,000, according to exit polls…Blue-collar women are most likely to be the remaining movable part of the electorate, which is precisely why both campaigns are going at them as hard as they are,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster, who is advising Priorities USA, a pro-Obama “super PAC.”
Latest electoral vote estimates-of-the-moment (includes leaning plus safe estimates): Politico Obama 281, Romney 257; New York Times Obama 237, Romney 206; Washington Post Obama 255, Romney 206. Real Clear Politics, Obama 281, Romney 257.
The Nation’s Ari Berman has a good update about Romney’s taxes and reluctance to disclose, noting that “Romney’s lack of financial disclosure is virtually without precedent.”
Here’s a moving tribute to Jerry Tucker, a tireless labor leader and reformer whose brilliance and dedication I witnessed while working with him in the successful coalition he lead to defeat the so-called “right-to work” referendum in Missouri and in other campaigns. To spend even a few minutes with Tucker always left you inspired, energized and full of hope for building a transformative progressive coalition.

If you had to boil down last night’s debate into a zinger-hooked catch-phrase, as in the 2nd debate’s “binders full of women,” presidential debate # 3’s catch-phrase would have to be Obama’s “horses and bayonettes” put-down of Romney as a defense policy lightweight, as Reuters’ Patricia Zengerle explains: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines,” he said…Obama even evoked a children’s military role-playing board game, “Battleship,” to bash his rival. “The question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships,” he said.” Ouch.
From CBS News’s “Poll: Decisive win for Obama in final debate“: “President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters…53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie.”
According to CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser: “Forty-eight percent of registered voters who watched Monday night’s third presidential debate say that Obama won the showdown, with 40% saying Romney did the better job in a debate dedicated to foreign policy. The president’s eight-point advantage over the former Massachusetts governor came among a debate audience that was slightly more Republican than the country as a whole and is just within the survey’s sampling error…Nearly six in ten watchers say that Obama did a better job in the debate than they had expected, 15 points higher than the 44% who said that the GOP challenger had a better than expected debate performance.”
HuffPo Pollster reports, “A poll of 500 swing state debate watchers, conducted by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling for Americans United for Change, also declared the debate a win for Obama. Fifty-three percent of voters said he did a better job, while 42 percent said Romney did…Opinions largely followed party lines — nine out of 10 Democrats thought the president won and 81 percent of Republicans thought Romney won, with independents splitting 55 percent for Obama and 40 percent for Romney.”
At Daily Kos, Hunter highlights a classic case of false equivalency spin with this headline: “No clear winner’ says CNN, even as CNN poll shows 8 point win for Obama.”
At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent had a salient observation: “…America was introduced to Peacenik Mitt — and watched him take a pummeling…Obama got right to his core message: We got Bin Laden, and we’re ending Bush’s wars. Obama holds the edge on foreign policy issues, and seemed determined to reinforce the sense that Romney simply lacks command of them, repeatedly invoking previous Romney statements to hit him for being “all over the map,” and contrasting that with the consistency and clarity he said a Commander in Chief must project…it’s hard to see this as a good night for Romney”
In “Unpacking the Final Debate,” Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley obseve at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, “The conventional wisdom before the debate season was that President Obama would have the edge in a foreign policy debate, and the conventional wisdom was right. The president, through superior knowledge and having — after four years — a record that is defensible in the field, won the third debate on foreign policy. Incumbent presidents typically have the edge on foreign affairs, although Jimmy Carter is, as always, the exception…The question is, how big did Obama win? Not nearly as big as Romney in the first debate, obviously. But by a decent margin — more than debate two.”
Chris Cillizza of WaPo’s The Fix saw it like this: “Obama controlled the third presidential debate in a way not all that dissimilar from the way Romney controlled the first one. Obama clearly came loaded for bear, attacking Romney from the jump for a lack of clarity when it came to his vision (or lack thereof) on foreign policy. If you are looking for moments — and remember that the media coverage over the next few days will focus on just that — Obama had two with his line about “the 1980s calling” in regards to Romney’s foreign policy and his reference to “horses and bayonets” to call into question his rival’s understanding of the modern military. It’s possible that Obama came off too hot/not presidential in some of his attacks but Democrats will take a little too much heat following Obama’s cold-as-ice performance in the first debate. Obama came across as the more confident and commanding presence — by a lot.”
TDS managing Editor Ed Kilgore’s sound assessment at Washington Monthly’s Political Animal: “…Taken as a whole, with Biden winning the Veep debate (though marginally) and Obama winning two of three presidential debates (the “rubber match” pretty clearly), the question now is whether that first debate gave Romney a decisive, irreversible advantage, either by carrying Romney across some “acceptability” threshold for “wrong track” undecided voters or or exciting conservatives beyond all reality…If the answer is “no,” Obama’s in pretty good shape going into the last two weeks, assuming the Democratic GOTV “ground game” is as good as advertised. Certainly Romney did nothing tonight to attract voters not already inclined to back him.”
Tweet of the night could go to TPM’s Josh Marshall (@joshtpm): “Huh, lot of my Republican friends suddenly seem really focused on sports.”

Bob Hotakainen of McCatchey newspapers relays some good news for Dems: “Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, says there’s a 60 percent to 65 percent chance that Democrats – who now have 53 of the 100 seats – will keep control of the Senate in 2013.”
I guess Romney won’t have to explain his secrecy on his personal taxes in the final debate, since the topic is foreign policy. It’s a shame, literally, that he gets a free ride on this issue in all three debates. Dems should slam his tax secrecy hard in ads in the swing states.
Dave Nyczepir & Shane D’Aprile have a post on “A roadmap for the final 72: How your campaign can make the most of the run-up to Election Day” up at Campaigns & Elections. One tip: “Among the toughest decisions the campaign has to make is how to spend late cash. While it’s easy to get sucked in by the low cost and speed of robocalls, Democrat Marty Stone says there are much better ways to use phones…”Don’t just think about 30-second blasts of messages, but think about where the voters are,” Stone says. “Do push-button auto calls, getting their opinions back.””
From the L.A. Times article by Christi Parsons and Seema Mehta, “Obama and Romney campaigns battle to mobilize voters” : “By the numbers, Obama would appear to have an advantage. He has more than double the paid staffers on the ground as Romney, and many are veterans of his earlier operation. In Ohio, which is seen as a must-win state for Romney, the Obama operation has opened 120 outposts, 45 more than it had in the state in 2008. Romney has 40.”
This is why campaigns need smart optics analysts.
What’s the matter with Tennessee? Put another way, why can’t Democrats get much traction in the Volunteer State? This, despite a long heritage of producing distinguished Democratic leaders like Andrew Jackson, Kefauver, the Gores and Fords, to name a few, and a history of reaping tremendous benefits from Democratic leaders, like FDR. Today, incumbent Republican Scott DesJarlais, embroiled in a particularly ugly scandal, still leads his Democratic adversary Eric Stewart in their 4th district race. Greg Johnson addresses the race and TN Dems frustrations in general in his Knoxnews.com post, “Is Democratic brand irretrievably and permanently damaged in Tennessee?”
Meanwhile, The Economist has a good update, “New South, Blue South?” on the purpling of TN’s neighbor, NC.
Do read Jason Easley’s PoliticusUSA post,”Audio Reveals Mitt Romney is Behind Employer Layoff Threats if Obama Wins ” and listen to the audio clip embedded in his post. Easeley reports: “According to the Working blog at In These Times, Romney said, “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees.”
ProPublica’s latest rap video “Money is Speech: A Musical History of Campaign Finance” is a hoot.
Just saw a sneak preview of Speilberg’s “Lincoln,” which is all about the politicking to get the 13th amendment to the Constitution passed in the House of Reps, along with a character study of Lincoln, ably played by Daniel Day Lewis. It struck me as sad that a party once lead by giants like Lincoln and the abolitionists has now been totally taken over by moral midgets who suppress the citizenship rights of people because of the color of their skin. Sadder still that some of the most respected conservative journalists betray the GOP’s once proud heritage with their unconscionable silence about voter suppression.