How Do I Know Romney Thinks He's Lost Ohio?

Because he wouldn't have run this false ad in that state wherein he claims that Chrysler is moving its Jeep production to China. I don't think he would have run an ad like that if he thought he had a chance of winning Ohio.

Although I have expressed admiration for some of Romney's political strategies -- like his decision to morph into a moderate during an actual debate -- I don't believe that openly lying about Chrysler was a good idea. It was certainly a bold move, but I doubt his campaign anticipated that Chrysler would feel compelled to actually issue a statement -- clearly in an attempt to calm down its workers -- stating that Chrysler was not moving its Jeep production overseas.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, in an editorial, skewers Romney on this issue:

The Romney campaign clearly is being hurt by the fact that Chrysler and GM were saved by the decisions of President Barack Obama. So Romney and his surrogates claim that Obama essentially followed their blueprint for the rescue or that it really wasn't a good deal -- because some plants and dealerships closed -- or, now, that the wolf is back at the door.

It won't work. Ohio voters know who stepped up when the auto industry was at the abyss -- and it wasn't Romney.

The editorial is right -- it won't work. But the fact that Romney felt he had to run the ad speaks volumes.

Trump Suspends His Racism For Nineteen Hours

What a nice guy:



And by the way, is Romney really this tone-deaf?

Triumph Covers The Debate

Hilarious

Donald Trump: A gift that just keeps on giving . . .



Stewart and Colbert also had some fun with The Donald.

Obama's Ohio Firewall is Holding

More bad news for Romney:

Buoyed by early voting in his favor, Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney by five points in the pivotal state of Ohio, according to a new TIME poll.

Counting both Ohioans who say they will head to the polls on November 6, and those who have already cast a ballot, Obama holds a 49% to 44% lead over Romney in a survey taken Monday and Tuesday night.  * * *

The poll makes clear that there are really two races underway in Ohio. On one hand, the two candidates are locked in a dead heat among Ohioans who have not yet voted but who say they intend to, with 45% of respondents supporting the President and 45% preferring his Republican challenger.

But Obama has clearly received a boost from Ohio’s early voting period, which began on Oct. 2 and runs through November 5. Among respondents who say they have already voted, Obama holds a two-to-one lead over Romney, 60% to 30%. * * *

Part of this poll was conducted before Obama crushed Romney in the foreign policy debate, and all of it was conducted before the Mourdock/Romney "God Likes Rape" Scandal started gaining steam. But these results remain consistent with the Ohio polling numbers that have come out over the last couple of weeks. Needless to say, Romney must win Ohio to have any real chance at winning the presidency.

By the way, the latest Mellman poll from Florida shows Obama and Romney tied at 47% there with Obama leading in the early voting. I was under the impression that Romney had Florida wrapped up, but I guess not. Mellman also shows that Obama has a one-point lead (46% to 45%) in Virginia, and even the new Newsmax/Zogby Poll has Obama holding a three-point lead amongst Virginia's likely voters.  And with regard to Nevada, both PPP and Rasmussen show that Obama has hit the coveted 50% mark in that state.

In other words, the recent talk from Camp Romney that Mitt has this election all sewn up is simply a bunch of horseshit.  The election is close, but any momentum Romney received from the first debate has obviously evaporated.

This explains why one of the Governor's "closest advisers" felt compelled to say the other day that Romney will win "305 electoral votes” on November 6th.  Only an idiot would make such a pronouncement if he actually thought it was true.  That was a statement issued by a campaign that knows it is in trouble.

Akin Furious At Mourdock Over Rape Comments

Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin responded angrily to Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock's recent statement that pregnancies resulting from rape are God's will. "Why bring The Lord into this," said Akin, "when science tells us that a woman's body has a way to shut down the whole pregnancy process if a woman is inseminated as a result of a legitimate rape."

Mourdock shot back, claiming that Akin -- by embracing science -- is "giving Satan a gigantic bear hug."   Mourdock adviser Joe Simpson added: "My Gosh, what's next for Akin -- is he going to start telling us that global warming is real?"

GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney, in an attempt to cool things down, suspended his campaign and met with both Akin and Mourdock today behind closed doors to see if common ground could be found between the two Senate candidates.

Details of what happened at this meeting are sketchy, but it was reported by one source close to Romney -- who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- that the Governor attempted to get Akin to concede that a small percentage of rapes might result in pregnancy if the woman who was being legitimately raped was not "in the peak of physical health" at the time of the assault. Both the Akin and Mourdock campaigns refused to comment after the meeting ended.

Prominent Republicans expressed concern today that this disagreement between Akin and Mourdock could have a negative impact the GOP's chances in the General Election. Said top Republican strategist Henry McIntyre: "The last thing our party needs is a distraction like this during the final two weeks of the campaign."

That's It? (with update)

Legendary asshole, Romney surrogate, and racist piece-of-shit Donald Trump just released his big Obama October Surprise:

Donald Trump said that he would donate $5 million to a charity of President Barack Obama's choosing. The catch?  Obama has to release his college applications and records, as well as his passport application and records, according to a Youtube video released Wednesday just before noon.  Trump said he'd honor the donation as long as Obama released those records before 5 p.m. on Oct. 31.

Your move, Mitt . . . .

And speaking of "momentum killers" for Romney, this is devastating:



And this doesn't help Romney's "momentum" either:

Republicans scrambled Wednesday to respond to Republican Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's assertion that even pregnancies caused by rape are intended by God, putting a harsh light on an issue that divides the party and has benefitted Democrats nationally and locally. * * *

[I]n a telling sign of where national Republicans see most of the country -- which favors abortion in the cases of rape or incest -- the campaign of GOP presidential nominee MItt Romney quickly distanced itself from the comment.

Yet it remains an issue that won't go away for Romney, whose campaign still backs the Hoosier Republican, if not his postion. "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Gov. Romney’s views." said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him." Romney just endorsed Mourdock and cut an ad for him. The campaign has not asked him to remove the ad.

Geesus, it's almost as if these guys want Romney to lose and are doing everything they can to sabotage his campaign.

UPDATE:  White House senior adviser David Plouffe had this to say when asked about Trump's above-referenced announcement:  "Direct those questions to Boston because Donald Trump is Mitt Romney's biggest supporter, so he owns everything he says."

A Swing-And-A-Miss For Hannity (with update)

Sean Hannity had this to say in response to Obama's "horses and bayonets" attack line from last night's debate:

“Some of our troops rode horses in Afghanistan and the Marines still carry bayonets. Maybe someone should tell the President how the military actually works.”

That would be a devastating comeback, Sean, except for one small problem: the President did not say that the military no longer uses horses and bayonets:



If you can't watch videos at your current location, here is what the President said to Romney last night:

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. 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 underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we are counting ships. . . ."

Face it, Hannity -- your guy got crushed by what can only be described as a well-crafted zinger. As John Kerry said last night: "The President Sunk Mitt Romney's Battleship."

UPDATE:  Read more about the GOP's response to "Horses and Bayonets" here.

Debate Reaction

I played poker tonight, so I didn't start watching a recording of the foreign policy debate until 9:45 or so, but my reaction was that it was just like the first debate, except this time it was Romney who was flat and Obama who was strong. A lot of that probably had to do with the format, Romney's inexperience, and the fact that Obama has been sturdy in this area, but there it is.

Obama did a good job at bringing up Romney's past statements concerning foreign policy. The President, of course, has been effectively dealing with these issues for almost four years, but he crushed Mitt on Iraq, on Israel, on bin Laden, and on general military readiness.

Although it wasn't as devastating as last week's "please proceed, Governor" trap, Obama's "horses and bayonets" retort should get a lot of replays over the next couple of weeks. The crowd certainly liked it. And when Obama didn't crush Mitt on an issue it was usually because Romney agreed with Obama's policies.

"Moderate Mitt" did make an appearance tonight just like he did in the first debate, but it didn't work as well as it did the first time around because a lot of the time he ended up agreeing with Obama (but Obama still went after him even when Romney agreed with the President's policy, which I though worked pretty well).

Romney did a good job pivoting to domestic policies as often as he could, but Obama was strong in his response to this tactic and did a good job pivoting back to foreign policy to tie it all together. And I loved it when Obama went after Romney on the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" issue because Romney was clearly wrong on that and his error should be brought up repeatedly.

Although Bob Schieffer did his usual solid job as moderator, I was surprised that Europe's economic problems didn't come up tonight. Oh well.

Best Description of Romney Yet (with update)

Charles Pierce had this to say about Romney after the last debate, and it is spot-on:

Romney bitched endlessly — endlessly — about the rules, and why this uppity fellow on the other stool was allowed to speak before he was spoken to, and why he didn't get to speak at length on whatever he wanted to speak on because, after all, he is the CEO of the stage.

Jesus Christ, I'd hate to play golf with the man. He's the guy who counts to make sure you don't have too many wedges in your bag. He knows every cheap subsection of every cheap ground rule, and he'll call you on every one of them. You couldn't get a free drop out of him with thumbscrews, and forget about conceding any putt outside two inches.

And then, on the 18th hole, with all the money on the line, he kicks his ball out of the rough and denies up and down to the rules committee that he did it. Then he goes into the clubhouse bar and nobody sits with him.

Romney did some of this at the first debate as well and it'll be interesting to see whether he pulls this crap tonight. I have no doubt that Mitt's handlers have told him to tone it down, but something tells me that he won't be able to help himself.

After all, he is what he is, and he is a dick.

UPDATE:   If a question about last month's Libya attack is asked at tonight's debate (and I'm sure there will be one), I predict that Obama will bring up the comments Ronald Reagan made immediately after Jimmy Carter's attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages ended in disaster.  Reagan said that "this is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united" and to pray. 

Romney, however, decided to launch a political attack on Obama as the events in Libya were unfolding.  So unReaganlike.

My Prediction For Foreign Policy Debate

I'm heading off to Vegas for a long weekend of craps shooting and poker playing, but before I go I want to make the following prediction about the upcoming foreign policy debate:

Unless another gaffe occurs comparable to Romney's colossal Libya fuck-up in the debate two days ago, I don't see the next debate as having much of an effect on anything. Foreign policy really isn't the focus of many voters this cycle. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if they changed the format and made the next debate solely about the economy, but that won't happen.

I don't think we'll see any gaffes in the next debate. Romney walked into a trap on Libya in the last one, but his handlers will have him much better prepared this time around.

By the way, the Libya question in the last debate should have been one of the high points for Romney because Libya has been a thorn in Obama's side for over a month and Romney was clearly chomping at the bit to nail the President on it. How Romney screwed it up so badly -- and let it become Obama's best moment -- is a bit mystifying to me.

The Question Now Is: Can Romney Recover From This? (updated)

What a difference two weeks make.

I spent the early part of the evening sitting in a bar watching the first half of the Yankees/Tigers game, but I DVR'd the debate and just finished watching it.  What struck me most was Romney's decision to yield some of his time to Obama.  He did it twice.  Romney first ceded time to Obama on the energy question, and Obama took it and crushed Mitt with it.

Later on in the debate, Romney tried to do the same thing on the Libya question, asking Obama to confirm that he did in fact go out into the Rose Garden a day after the Libya attack and called it an act of terror.  Romney was certain the President had not done this and thought he had nailed Obama, and no doubt fully expected Obama to take the bait. 

But this time, No-Drama Obama refused to take Romney up on his offer to explain, saying instead:  "Please proceed, Governor."  This is because Obama knew Romney was right in the middle of committing a huge gaffe, so he just gave him more rope to finish the job.  Romney was clearly surprised by Obama's "proceed Governor" response, and his stammering attempt to recover was politely interrupted by moderator Candy Crowley, who put Romney out of his misery by stating that Obama did in fact call the incident a terrorist attack one day later.

It was an astounding moment that will go down in history along with the "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment and "there is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be" statement at the Ford/Carter debate.  In other words, it was a soon-to-be legendary gaffe on Romney's part, something I honestly did not expect to see from him in any of these debates.

I was also impressed by the way Obama pivoted effortlessly on some of the questions.  His pivot from guns to education later in the debate was a bit clunky, but his pivot from Lilly Ledbetter to Planned Parenthood was flawless, as was his pivot from $1.70 gas prices to Bush/Cheney/Romney policies.  I also liked how Obama came to the defense of Bush, stating that W was nowhere near as radical as Mitt Romney currently is.

What also struck me was all the sniveling Romney did with regard to the debate rules and how he perceived that they were being violated.  This tactic worked for Romney in the first debate, but it fell flat in this last one.  I'm not sure why it failed this time around.  Perhaps it was the debate format or perhaps it was the fact that Obama actually showed up with some rhetorical ammunition this time.

Or maybe it had more to do with what my friend Dan told me prior to the debate while we were watching the game.  He said the first debate was part of a rope-a-dope strategy and that Obama would start landing blows tonight, and that is what happened. A clearly-flustered Romney tried to fight back with lines that worked in the first debate, but this time those lines sounded stale whereas Obama's points sounded fresh because he didn't say them in the last debate because he was rope-a-doping.

Anyway, solid night for Obama and an off night for Mitt.  And by the way, I'm glad Crowley stuck to her guns and acted like a moderator instead of merely an announcer.  She did an excellent job.

UPDATE:  Steve Benen nails it:

Objective observers can agree that President Obama's debate performance two weeks ago fell far short, but the setback featured one saving grace: there was no moment. Obama was off his game, but there wasn't a major, high-profile, embarrassing setback that could be replayed over and again.

By this measure, Mitt Romney's defeat last night was even worse, because he teed up all kinds of moments. He embarrassed himself on Benghazi; he was laughed at over the size of his pension; and of course he offered the political world the gift of "binders full of women."

Questions I'd Love To Ask Mitt Romney Tonight

Look, I know the following questions will never be asked, but I'd sure love to hear them answered:

• Gov. Romney, you refuse to tell the American people how you would pay for your proposed across-the-board 20% tax cut, yet your campaign claims that six independent studies have validated your plan. Did you tell the folks who conducted the six independent studies the details you won't tell us, and if you did not, how were they able to score your tax plan?


• Governor, your father said, with regard to a presidential candidate's tax returns, that the release of a single return wasn't enough because it could be a fluke, or even a cynical manipulation. Your father then released 12 years of returns, and you yourself demanded ten years worth from Congressman Ryan, yet you refuse to release any of your tax returns prior to 2010. What is it you mistrust about the American people that compels you not to release several years of returns like your father did?


• Gov. Romney, how does your economic plan differ from what George W. Bush did when he was president?


• Governor, a month ago, a video was released wherein you stated that 47 percent of Americans are dependent upon government, believe that they are victims, believe that government has a responsibility to provide them health care, food, and housing, and that your job is not to worry about these people. After the video's release, you simply commented that your remarks were not elegantly stated. However, you recently said that your comments were “just completely wrong.” Why did it take you so long to disavow those remarks?


• Gov. Romney, at the last debate you said your health care plan covered folks with pre-existing conditions. Moments after the debate ended, your campaign issued a retraction. My question is two-fold: (1) What really is your plan with regard to coverage of pre-existing conditions, and (2) Can you promise, right now, that your answer to the first part of this question won't later be retracted by your campaign?

Go Candy!

I haven't been a big fan of Candy Crowley in the past, but I support her 100% on this:

In a rare show of unity, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about CNN's Candy Crowley, who will moderate Tuesday's town hall forum.  The reason, according to Time's Mark Halperin, is that Crowley has publicly said that she intends to play an active role in the debate, rather than just let the audience at the town hall ask questions.

Time's Halperin got his hands on the secret debate contract -- or "Memorandum of Understanding" -- hammered out by the two campaigns for every debate. Many groups have long demanded for these contracts to be made public as a matter of routine, but the Commission and the campaigns have resisted.  According to Halperin, the MOU, which he said Crowley is "not party to," calls for the moderator to play a relatively limited role in the town-hall debate. ***

The MOU stipulates that the moderator "will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period."

Crowley has flat-out stated, however, that she will in fact ask follow-up questions, and I don't blame her. Geesus, if all the campaigns want is an announcer for this thing instead of a moderator, then they should get Don Pardo to do it.

It's the Ohio, Stupid (with update)

For those out there who live and die by every poll (and you know who you are), this one's for you:

PPP's newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading 51-46, a 5 point lead not too different from our last poll two weeks ago when he led 49-45.

The key finding on this poll may be how the early voters are breaking out. 19% of people say they've already cast their ballots and they report having voted for Obama by a 76-24 margin. Romney has a 51-45 advantage with those who haven't voted yet, but the numbers make it clear that he already has a lot of ground to make up in the final three weeks before the election.

I guess this poll demonstrates why Republicans hate early voting so much, but I digress.

For those of you who are keeping track, this is the third straight poll showing Obama breaking the 50% barrier in Ohio. CNN had Obama up 51-47 on Tuesday; and last Thursday the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll had Obama leading by six in Ohio, 51-45.

The dreaded Romney Debate Bounce just hasn't materialized in The Buckeye State. The PPP numbers reveal why that is:

We've found a major improvement in Mitt Romney's image in most of the states that we've polled since the Presidential debate, but Ohio is an exception. His favorability now is a 45/51 spread, showing no improvement from his 45/49 breakdown two weeks ago. Obama meanwhile has seen a small spike in his approval rating, from 48/49 to 50/48.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Mitt Romney's biggest weakness is that he is still Mitt Romney.  The one place where he really needed a debate bounce was Ohio, because it is a must-win state for him.  But as the favorability numbers indicate, Ohioans appear to have scoffed at Mitt's attempt to re-brand himself as a moderate.

UPDATE:  Do the following poll results mean it is now Romney supporters' turn to consider suicide?

Likely voters in the new [Washington Post/ABC] poll split 49 percent for Obama to 46 percent for Romney, basically unmoved from the poll two weeks ago, just before the two candidates met in Denver for their first debate. On topic after topic, the survey portrays an electorate that remains deeply divided along partisan lines and locked in its views.

Nearly two-thirds say they do not need any more information before Election Day, and barely one in eight is undecided or says there is a chance he could change his vote. Even as voters overwhelmingly perceive that Romney won the first debate, the vast majority say their opinion of the president did not shift as a result.

It's the 2004 Election all over again, folks.

Republican Cry Babies (With Update)

This comment from a reader with regard to the VP debate made me laugh:

Biden, Ryan at each other on everything...
TENSE...
CNN POLL: R 48% B 44%...
Chris Wallace: I've never seen a candidate as disrespectful as Biden...
Borger: Came Off As Condescending...
Hume: 'Cranky Old Man'...
Biden Interrupted Ryan 82 Times?
RNC AD: THE LAUGHTER...
REALCLEAR MAP SHOWS SHIFT...

Whaaaaa!! Christ, what a bunch of whiners. The commenter cites FoxNews criticism of Biden? FoxNews personalities don't like Joe Biden?  Wow, what a shock.

The commenter cites the CNN poll? Really? That snap poll was so skewed toward Republicans that CNN had to actually put up a disclaimer saying exactly that. Yet even with this heavy skew toward GOP voters, the poll basically showed the debate to be a tie, which was bad news for Republicans.  It did not simply poll undecided voters like CBS did. 

How do you know that the CBS poll is right in showing a huge Biden win?  Because the only person everybody was talking about after the debate was Joe Biden.  That's all FoxNews was talking about.

So Fox is pissed off that Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times.  You know what pissed me off?  That Biden didn't interrrupt Ryan 100 times or more. I lost count of how many instances I was screaming at the television for Biden to interrupt Ryan when the Congressman was telling another one of his whoppers and Biden didn't do it.

The RNC didn't like Biden's laughter? That was probably my favorite part of the whole debate. In fact, Biden didn't laugh enough in my opinion, given how full of shit Ryan was the other night. The person who posted the above-quoted comment apparently wasn't smart enough to figure out that if Fox and the RNC are this pissed off at Biden, then Biden must have won and won big.

Not only should a debater in Biden's position do the kind of stuff that he did -- you have to do it, and do it as often as you possibly can.  That's because these are no longer debates.  The Romney campaign is using them as infomercials to introduce Mitt Romney 3.0, this moderate who loves regulation, cares about poor people, and would never ever consider lowering taxes on rich people or raising them on the Middle Class. 

Usually, by this time in the election cycle, the policies of each campaign are well-know by everyone, and the debates take place to, well . . .  actually debate these policies.  Not this cycle.  I've never seen a presidential campaign try to remake itself during the actual debates -- but it is happening now.

Call it good politics, call it a mockery of the process. I don't care. The bottom line is when someone tries to pull shit like this, you really need to hit back aggressively.  And if that means interrupting your opponent mid-prevarication or smiling in contempt as much as you possibly can, then so be it. 

And that is what Biden did on Thursday night, perhaps not enough to my liking, but it was a good start.

UPDATE:  And this is for all you Democrat cry-babies -- the ones I ranted against last Thursday -- who say I'm not paying enough attention to the polls.  Apparently this Romney momentum that is causing you all to repeatedly soil yourselves just hasn't caught hold in The Grand Canyon State.

Rocky Mountain just released this new poll on the presidential race in Arizona, a state with eleven electoral votes:

After trailing Mitt Romney by as much as eight points in days immediately following the Presidential debate, the President is now in a statistical tie with Romney in Arizona both as regards the overall electorate and among those mostly likely to cast ballots. While Obama leads Romney by two points in the race for President, the gap is within the study’s margin of error and basically means they are in a dead heat.

Yes, you read that right -- Obama has more than closed an eight-point gap in Arizona, and did so after a debate performance that caused so many brain aneurysms in so many progressives.

Bottom line: You can now officially add Arizona to the list of swing states.

An Interesting Moment From Last Night's Debate

Look, I understand that Romney and Ryan don't have a lot of experience in foreign policy. With regard to Romney, his catastrophic oversees trip in July demonstrated that. But at least -- at this late stage in the campaign -- these guys should be able to competently talk about foreign policy.

Paul Ryan said this about Afghanistan 56 minutes into last night's debate (h/t Steve Benen):

"We agree with the Administration on their 2014 transition."

Moments later, Ryan had this to say about Afghanistan:

"[W]e don't want to broadcast to our enemies, put a date on your calendar, wait us out, and then come back.' ... What we don't want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more -- we don't want to embolden our enemies."

Wait, what? Romney must be giving Ryan lessons on flip-floppery because that might have been the fastest change-of-position in American politcal history. To paraphrase Bill Maher, even Romney's Etch-A-Sketch did a double-take on that one. 

Charles Pierce said it best about Ryan's performance last night: "He was more lost in Afghanistan than the Russian army ever was."

Quick Take on VP Debate

Biden put on a clinic on how to debate a Republican.  I hope Obama was watching because that's how it's done.  The GOP sucks when it comes to policy, and that was revealed for all to see tonight.

Ryan was crushed on foreign policy issues, and was surprisingly weak on economic issues.  In fact, Ryan appeared out of his element for pretty much all the debate.  I thought Raddatz did a solid job as moderator.

UPDATE:  In a CBS snap poll of undecided voters, 50% said Biden won tonight's debate, 31% said Ryan won, and 19% said it was a tie.

Sorry To Go Off On A Rant Here . . .

. . . but everybody just needs to chill the fuck out.

I've lost count of how many people have called me up or spoke to me in person in the last week about how despondent they are over Obama "losing the election" because of his debate performance. I actually watched last week's debate from beginning to end, and although my initial reaction was that the President had a flat performance as a result of a deliberate decision not to go after Romney, I didn't think it was a catastrophe.  Obama didn't commit any gaffes.  George W. Bush had flat performances in both the 2004 debates, yet John Kerry -- who was widely declared the winner in both those meetings -- still lost the election.

But all I heard from friends, family, and the fucking news media was how Obama is now on the ropes and this thing is basically over. Andrew Sullivan, who is normally a pretty solid pundit, has practically been shitting himself over how bad he perceived Obama to be last week, and don't even get me started about Chris Fucking Matthews.

My response to these folks was two-fold: (1) Ohio is a must-win state for Romney, and that state is a goddam firewall for Obama, and (2) Mitt Romney is still Mitt Romney, and anything that happened last week doesn't change that basic fact.

But all the nervous folks who saw Obama's debate performance as a political Armageddon responded, "But look at the polls!! The polls!! Waaaaa!!!"

And then their heads exploded.

So OK, if you want me to look at the polls, check this out:

While there’s been an array of state and national numbers over the last few days, two sets of polls from NBC/WSJ/Marist and CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac represent some of the first results from top outlets that polling analysts tend to lend the most credibility. And the numbers, while improved for Romney, still show Obama with an advantage in key states.

Most important: Ohio, a likely must-win for Romney where Obama has held a solid lead in recent weeks. NBC/WSJ pegs the race at 51-45 for Obama, a 2-point bounce for Romney since their last poll with the president’s own support remaining steady. It’s the second post-debate poll of Ohio from a major news organization to show Obama breaking the 50 percent barrier — CNN put him up 51-47.

And if that isn't enough for you, the NBC/WSJ poll found Florida "essentially tied at 48-47 Obama, the same margin as before the debate."

Did you catch that last part?  The debate didn't change the Florida numbers at all.

So everybody just calm the hell down. When Romney's devastating "47%" video was released three weeks ago, I stated:  "[U]nless Obama is caught on live TV in the next few weeks having sexual relations with an aardvark on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I'm pretty sure this one is over."  I stand by that remark.  In fact, I'm more convinced now that Obama will win than I was three weeks ago.

Oh, and while I'm off on a rant, Darrell Issa can go fuck himself.

Finally

How Do You Know The GOP Hates The Latest Jobs Report? (with update)

Because they are claiming that the new jobs numbers are part of some vast left-wing conspiracy:

Jack Welch defended his assertion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was engaged in a vast conspiracy to inflate jobs numbers before the election, during an appearance on MSNBC Friday. However, he admitted he had only a hunch to support his claim.

“I have no evidence of corruption, none whatsoever” he told a combative Chris Matthews on Hardball.  Nonetheless: “Jack Welch is raising the question,” Welch said.

Jack Welsh is referring to himself in the third person?  Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode ( "Jimmy might have a compound fracture ... Jimmy's going into shock!!").  Check out this hilarious take by the AP on this newest right-wing conspiracy theory ("Sasquatch might as well have traipsed across the White House lawn Friday with a lost Warren Commission file on his way to the studio where NASA staged the moon landing").

I love it how the right wing hates it when the economy shows strong signs of improvement.  Sure, the good jobs report slows down the momentum Romney received from his debate performance, but the Republican response to it is pathetic and un-American (as is the right wing's oft-expressed frustration over Obama taking out bin Laden).

And speaking of momentum killers, it was clearly a mistake by the Romney Campaign -- immediately after Mitt's strong debate performance -- to correct their own candidate on his comment regarding pre-existing conditions. As I stated last Wednesday evening after the debate, "Romney has finally gained some momentum with this performance" so "[w]hy ruin the moment by fact-checking your own candidate?"

Well, this reporting from TPM points out exactly why you shouldn't fact check your own candidate after a good, potentially campaign-changing debate performance:

President Obama said at a campaign event in Virginia [on Friday] that Mitt Romney's claim that his health plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions was "fact-checked by his own campaign. That is rough."

The Romney campaign clarified the former governor's claim after the debate this week, saying states will have to pass their own versions of Romney's health care plan to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Look, I don't know for certain if the Romney Campaign's plan was to have their candidate abandon his "severely conservative" approach at the debate and suddenly become a moderate during those ninety minutes. (What's Romney going to do for an encore in the next debate, embrace communism?)  I suspect that the sudden shift to the left was the plan, and as I noted last Wednesday, it was "an interesting, potentially game-changing strategy."  So why piss all over the good results by fact-checking your own guy after he successfully implements this strategy? 

Sure, Obama would still have the argument that Romney flip-flopped on pre-existing conditions coverage, but it would only be Obama and his people saying that.  Now you have Obama saying it and Romney's own people backing up Obama's assertion, which provides the President with the excellent -- and very effective -- stump speech one-liner quoted above.  It's just bad politics on the part of the Romney Campaign.

UPDATE: Here is Bill Maher's take on last Wednesday's debate:

"[Obama] sucked.  He looked tired.  He had trouble getting his answers out.  It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed.  I have not seen a Black man look that disinterested and annoyed since I dragged Chris Rock to that Beach Boys concert.  At one point Obama looked so dead Romney tried to baptize him.

Oh, I kid Mitt Romney.  Hey, it's Morman in America again.  It is for the Romney campaign.  I have not seen Mitt Romney this energized since HBO cancelled Big Love.  He is fired up.  You've got to hand it to Mitt Romney -- he was in full command of his bullshit.  Right? You've got to give it up to this man.  In one single night he was reborn as this taxing-the-rich, regulation-loving centrist.

I tell you, when these people say they're going to reboot this campaign, they don't just reboot -- they erase the hard drive, take it out, and smash it with a hammer.  Mitt Romney is a such a different guy, Anne Romney said she no longer has to pretend that she's making love to someone else.

And, I have to tell you it worked. He shook the etch-a-sketch, reversed himself on everything, and now in the latest poll, twice as many people think that Romney cares about them.  They totally took him back. Today, Chris Brown said:  'That motherfucker is good.'"

My Take On The Debate (With Update)

I thought Romney did pretty well for himself tonight.  I've only seen him like this one other time before and that was in his now-infamous "47%" video.

And I don't mean that as a slam because I'm not talking about content (everybody agrees that the content of Romney's 47% speech was very bad for his campaign).  I'm talking about tone and demeanor here. 

The one thing that struck me about Romney in his secretly-filmed speech to the millionaires -- once I set aside the awful things he said -- was how confidently and forcefully he spoke in that video, particularly when you compared it to other appearances Romney made where he seemed awkward and unsure of himself.  In fact, my first reaction to the secretly-made film was that it wasn't really him speaking and someone had just put it out there as a prank.  It didn't sound like Mitt Romney.

He seemed like a different person in that 47% speech, someone I hadn't seen before -- someone who truly believed in what he was saying.  And I saw that in Romney again tonight.

UPDATE:  I think this is a wrong-headed move by the Romney Camp:

After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.

The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back.

This is a mistake. Look, Romney said a ton of moderate-sounding things at tonight's debate that didn't exactly jibe with what he's been saying during his campaign. But the last thing his people should do is walk back these statements. 

Romney has finally gained some momentum with this performance (after what can be politely described as a dismal last few weeks).  Why ruin the moment by fact-checking your own candidate?  Mitt apparently made a decision to move toward the middle during this debate, and it is an interesting, potentially game-changing strategy. It certainly caught Obama and his people off guard.

Romney's campaign should simply embrace these policy changes and not worry so much about what the more radicalized elements within the GOP think about them.  Sure, he'll be called a flip-flopper, but everyone already knows he's one of those, so no big story there. 

The radical right wing isn't going to abandon Romney just because he decided, at this late date, to move to the middle after running as a "severe conservative" for the past year.  They hate Obama way too much to do something like that.

Bonus Quote of the Week (With Update)

“The only thing in politics that is worse than voters deciding that they don’t like you is when voters decide you don’t like them.”

- Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, on Romney's "forty-seven percent" comment.

Plus, there must be nothing more satisfying for a politician than to use an opponent's own attack ad against him:



UPDATE: Here's an extra bonus quote of the week for you:

"[T]he guy with a tax account in the Cayman Islands is attacking other people for not wanting to pay income tax? I mean, you've got to give him credit."

- Bill Clinton, on Romney's "forty-seven percent" comment.

Quote of the Week (with updates)

"Wednesday’s presidential debate promises sharp contrasts. One candidate wants to repeal Obamacare, one candidate invented it. One opposed the auto industry bailout, one takes credit for it. One doubts the scientific consensus about climate change, one believes in it. One wants to 'voucherize' Medicare, one wants to save it. One dismisses nearly half of Americans as a bunch of moochers, and one claims to champion the struggling middle class.

"It promises to be an epic clash: Mitt Romney vs. Mitt Romney. Oh, and President Obama will be there, too."

- Eugene Robinson

By the way, here is a question that I hope will be asked at tomorrow's debate: "Gov. Romney, how does your economic plan differ from what George W. Bush did when he was president?"

In fact, this is such an obvious line of inquiry that I'm certain Romney has prepared an answer, but I still would like to hear the question asked.

UPDATE: And speaking of debates, this is interesting:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) insisted Monday night that he didn't support the budget sequester put into place last summer that Congress is now trying to get out of. But, well, he did vote for it.

During a debate with his Democratic challenger Wayne Powell, Cantor blamed President Barack Obama for pushing through a debt deal in August 2011 that included a $1.2 trillion sequester, or a trigger for automatic, across-the-board spending cuts set to kick in at the end of this year. The sequester was never intended to take effect. It was supposed to spur lawmakers to come up with a better way to cut trillions in spending. But Congress failed to come up with a bipartisan plan, so the possibility of the sequester taking effect now looms.

Barack Obama is a pretty good politician, but insisting on the sequester may have been his most savvy political move yet. It is giving the GOP fits. As Andrew Sullivan noted in a recent Newsweek article:

Obama’s long game was designed for this climactic moment. When it became clear last summer that a grand bargain was impossible, Obama cut a deal that would put the Pentagon, the Bush tax era, and popular entitlements simultaneously on the chopping block after the election, a combo, understandably dubbed Taxmageddon, that could very well tip the U.S. economy back into recession. Romney now says he regrets the deal. He is right to. It gives a reelected Obama maximal leverage in a period when a critical decision really has to be made. If the GOP refuses to budge, they lose two of their most treasured policies: big defense spending and Bush’s tax legacy. And they could be blamed for the resulting economic damage. In some ways, Obama’s second term could be fiscally defined by the last two months of his first.

If Obama wins reelection, then the last couple months of this year could be very interesting politically. The GOP's Pact With The Devil -- namely, Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge -- will be put to the test in a big way.

UPDATE II: A few other people also want the "How would your economic policies differ from Bush's?" question asked at tomorrow's debate.  Ed Kilgore thinks Obama should use the line as a "zinger," but I believe it would be more effective if it was an actual question asked by the moderator.  It's one of those tough questions that would cut right through the Romney/Ryan horseshit.