Polling is going to be even more problematical for this election. Horrors! Poll junkies like me will just have to, you know, actually wait for election day to learn what is going to happen. Eek. It reminds me of the time when the networks had to throw out all their exit polls and just report the vote counts as they came in without being able to project the winners using any exit polls. I can't remember what year that was - maybe 2002 - but I remember how the anchors on TV election night had to spin things without any news to report. This may be the same this year. Though if you want to read about what the polls say up to Hurricane Sandy, Josh Jordan has a good summary. And Guy Benson tries to make sense of Gallup's report that Romney leads 52/46 among the 15% of early voters. It's not limited to swing states so it could be that Romney's numbers are being run up in red states that don't matter so much to the outcome, but it is interesting to compare this year's poll of early voters to 2008.
With the nation watching destruction wreaked by nature, it is so disconcerting and disgusting to read of fans in San Francisco wreak their own type of destruction to celebrate the Giants win the World Series.
Now Obama is talking about having a "secretary of Business" if he wins reelection. I guess Obama forgot that we already have a Department of Commerce. Just what we need - more government interference in the economy and private business. Jonah Goldberg wonders who would be Obama's SOB.
Jonathan Last defends Nate Silver.
Forget any idea of postponing the election. Obama can't do that unilaterally, of course. Congress would have to quick pass a new law and then states would have to pass laws to comply with that change. The most that could happen is for states to extend voting hours and allow more provisional ballots. The law really is silent on the issue. When people talked about provisional plans to postpone the election in 2004 in case of a terrorist attack, Joe Biden was against it.
“I think that is the worst idea in the world,” Biden said in a 2004 interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” according to a transcript. “Essentially acknowledging to the whole world we think we’re going to be attacked before this happens, I think it is absolutely mindless with all due respect.”A natural disaster is different from a terrorist attack, but we did manage to hold an election in the midst of a Civil War; I think we can do it a week after a hurricane. What might be of more benefit for Congress to do is to allocate emergency funds to send generators and perhaps poll workers to polling stations in the afflicted areas.
Jonah Goldberg wonders why there has been no feeding frenzy on Benghazi compared to the frenzy when news of George Bush's 24-year-old DUI arrest the week before the 2000 election. The media would rather talk about Richard Mourdock's attempt to explain his views on rape and abortion than talk about the accusation that sources on the ground pleaded for seven hours for support during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi and were told to sand down, yet the rest of the media are just ignoring the story. The President has told us that he ordered everything to be done to protect our people there. Well, that wasn't done. So either someone disobeyed orders or Obama lied. Shouldn't we want to find out the truth? As Goldberg writes,
This isn't an "October surprise" foisted on the media by opposition research; it's news.If you haven't watched it yet, you should watch Pat Caddell's cri de coeur over the media's lack of coverage over the Benghazi story.
This story raises precisely the sort of "big issues" the media routinely claim elections should be about. For instance, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week that the "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place." If real-time video of the attack and communications with Americans on the ground begging for assistance doesn't constitute "real-time information," what does?
Glenn Reynolds explains why even Obama's supporters should be disappointed in him. And right on cue Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post about how disappointed he has been in Barack Obama who seems to love himself even more than his fans do. Cohen wishes that Obama could have been a person who cared as much for the poor and downtrodden as Robert F. Kennedy did. One quibble is that Cohen writes that RFK gave his life for his opposition to the war in Vietnam. That is false. He was killed by a Palestinian militant who was angry about Robert Kennedy's support of Israel. Interesting how that fact has gotten written out of history.
I don't understand why Obama even flew to be in Florida yesterday thinking he could get a rally in ahead of the storm. Then he had to abandon those plans and fly back to D.C. because his aides feared he wouldn't be able to fly back into Washington and it would look bad for him not to be able appear as a leader during the hurricane from the nation's capital. They had all the forecasts; why did they even send him down there in the first place? Was he so determined to keep on campaigning that he was willing to risk the bad optics of flying down first and then coming back?
Are swearing grannies really what Michael Moore thinks will sway voters?
Matt Lewis explains why the public doesn't care about Romney's pivot to the center.
But as frustrating as it may be, the one consistent thing Romney's opponents have learned is that voters don't much care about your past flip so long as your current flop is in their direction. In the primary, grassroots conservatives were generally okay with him flipping to their points of view. Now, voters looking for a serious moderate are relieved to see Romney flop their way.
And the truth is that voters often go with their intuition — and at the "gut" level, Romney is a moderate. It's entirely plausible that the reason Romney is now surging — the reason he is now more likeable — is that this Mitt Romney is actually more authentic than the "severely conservative" Mitt Romney.
Either way, politicians should quit expecting voters to care about consistency (even if we agree they should care). Voters aren't like a jury sworn to weigh the evidence and then hold people accountable for past actions or inconsistencies. Instead, they are more like a committee tasked to hire someone for the future.
Expecting someone to be shocked that a politician would move to the right (or left) to win a primary, and then tack to the center, is like Casablanca's Captain Renault being shocked — SHOCKED! — to find gambling at Rick's Café.