South Dakota Politics

It’s the Voters, Stupid

Some witty baseball manager (I know that doesn't narrow it down much, but I can't remember who it was) said that a manager is as smart as his closing pitcher is good. Or something like that. Anyway, it was one of those shrewd remarks that let a very big cat out of a very big bag. Baseball mangers, players, analysts and fans are informavores. They all crave information both for the uses it can supposedly be put to and for the sheer fun of following the game. A manager looks smart when he goes to a good closer and the closer keeps the lead and dumb when he fails to do so in time. But all we really know is what happened, not what would have happened if the manager had made another decision.

Political players and political junkies are much the same. Campaign strategists pour over maps and sheets of stats, trying to figure out how to spend money and time. In recent elections a lot of attention has been paid to the "ground game," the efforts of campaigns to get out every last vote for their side. In 2004, Karl Rove put a lot of resources into the ground game, or as it was sometimes called, the "base strategy." When Bush won, Rove looked pretty smart. I think his closing pitcher just enjoyed a better lead.

At best, a ground game might marginally increase a candidate's vote. That is if the number of people who are prodded and carted to the polls inspite of themselves is larger than the number of people who get sick enough of all the prodding to stay home or even vote the other way. Bush wins Ohio in 2004 by 118,601. I am skeptical that Rove's ground game produced anywhere near that large a net advantage.

That is not to say that campaigns can dispense with a ground game. In Florida in 2000 a ground game that had been more effective by less than a thousand votes could have decided the election. Neither campaign can afford not to play the game, if only because of how that would be interpreted by the press and the electorate. The ground game is an expression both of confidence and of respect for the electorate. I just think that a little skepticism is in order.

President Obama is the first President to cast his vote early, an expression, thinks Alana Goodman at Commentary, of enthusiasm for his campaigns early vote strategy. It's hard not to think that some people will vote early who might not have made it to the polls on Election Day. How many of those early voters would not have voted at all without the early voting push is much harder to tell; but if it comes down to a recount in Ohio, they might matter. Still, the ground game and the emphasis on turnout will matter only if the election comes down to 2000 level margins.

A lot of attention is being paid to which campaign is winning the early vote, and rightly so. Pew has this:

Currently, Romney holds a seven-point edge among early voters (50% to 43%); because of the small sample, this lead is not statistically significant. At this point four years ago, Obama led John McCain by 19 points (53% to 34%) among early voters.

Here's Gallup:

Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.

As is the way of this campaign, these conclusions are disputed by other polls and are not in sync with key state polls. Either way, how the voters are breaking is all that matters.

I think that the ground game is over emphasized as a factor in the outcome, but then I think that campaigns are overemphasized for the same reason. To think that the outcome depends on what the candidates and their campaigns do gets it ass backwards. It's the voters who decide the outcome, whether they vote early, on Election Day, or not at all.

If Romney wins it won't be because he pulled the wool over the voter's eyes or because Obama was listless in the first debate. It will be because the voters decide that Romney looks like a better prospect than four more years of Obama. If Obama wins, it won't be because the Press was in the bag for him or because Romney didn't have enough field offices in Ohio. It will be because voters came to the opposite conclusion.

Noxious Numbskullery from Andrew Sullivan

Several years ago I gave a talk about Ronald Reagan to the Exchange Club in Jonesboro, Arkansas. I was preceded on that occasion by a couple of Civil War reenactors, one of whom made the statement that the Civil War was not about slavery. Every head in the room except mine nodded in agreement. In the context I did not think it proper to respond but if I had I would have explained to them why they were all wrong. The Civil War was about nothing else.

The legacy of slavery, the war, and the civil rights movement cast long shadows over the South and for very good reasons. While my Southern brethren have yet to take full responsibility for their history that does not mean that it cannot be abused for political purposes.

Andrew Sullivan on This Week showed how it can be abused. Here is the clip from YouTube.

Here is Sullivan's inflammatory statement:

If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it's the Confederacy. Entirely. You put the map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you've got the Civil War. Am I wrong?

There are so many things wrong with this that one hardly knows where to begin. I begin with George Will's response:

A lot of white people who voted for Obama in 2008 watched him govern for four years and said, 'Not so good, let's try someone else.' The alternative, the Confederacy hypothesis, is those people somehow for some reason in the last four years became racist.

Will also points out that Democratic candidates for President have been losing the White vote since 1964. In every case but one both candidates were White. To put it mildly, the claim that Barack Obama might lose the White vote this year because of racism lacks empirical support. Sullivan denied that that was what he was saying but what else could the Confederacy statement imply?

Sullivan's statement was obviously wrong. If Mitt Romney wins the election he will very probably win every state that seceded in 1860-61, just as George W. Bush did in 2004. Romney will also win a lot of states that were not in existence at that time, along with Indiana and I dare say Ohio. So the electoral map and the Confederacy are hardly one and the same map. All that the electoral map tells us is that the states are divided by party preference along sectional lines. That is a commonplace of American politics.  Suppose that all the state with large numbers of Hispanic immigrants voted Democrat.  I expect that some nationalists would regard that as an invasion by Mexico.  By Sullivan's logic, they would have a point. 

What Sullivan's comment implies is there is something sinister if this particular group of states aligns in a presidential election, at least if they align against a candidate who happens to be African American. That is a bald faced attempt to discredit the free choice of millions of voters in a vast region of the nation. Worse still, it implies that if majorities in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida go Republican this year, they will be guilty of recreating the Confederacy. Shame on them!

This is noxious numbskullery. Voters in these three states have every right to pass judgment on the man in the White House this year just as they do every four years. Sullivan has a Chris Matthews like affection for the President. If people in a number of key states do not share his affection, he wants us to think that that is a sign of a deficiency of character. I think that Sullivan's argument is a sign of a deficiency of character.

I don't know how strong racism is as a force in national voter preferences. I know that it was not sufficient to prevent Barack Obama from winning a presidential election. I also know that a reasonable person might conclude that Obama does not deserve reelection on the basis of his record alone. Some Obama partisans have argued that their opponents are motivated by racism. Some of these partisans have been as hateful, hysterical, and bigoted as any KKK yahoo.

Such partisans do the President no service. Whatever one thinks of Barack Obama, he had the courage and talent to run for and win the White House. He deserves to be judged by his conduct in office. Those who raise the racism flag obviously don't have confidence that he could survive such a judgment. Trying to protect him from it is another kind of racism.

Spend Halloween Night in The Cabin in the Woods

It is very hard to say anything about The Cabin in the Woods without giving nearly everything away. So:

SPOILER ALERT!

I will issue another alert near the end of this review. I plead in my defense that the hype preceding the film gave most of this away anyhow.

If you are a horror movie fan and you have been thinking that what we really need is a unified field theory of the surreal estate on which all the creepily ugglies creep, you are about to be satisfied. Such a unified field theory of horror land would need to answer two questions.

Most horror stories are strictly local in focus: this is something happening to these people in this old dark house. Almost all such stories have radical implications for the larger world in which they take place. If Michael Myers shows up in Haddonfield, he can show up in your town. A world with one genuine vampire in it is a world in which vampires and presumably all the other supernatural creepily ugglies are possible. Now: what would a world be like that could contain all the monsters than inhabit all the tales?

Second, subgenres of horror story telling are notoriously fond of certain formulas. The 'cabin in the woods' story line is reproduced dozens if not hundreds of times a year. It is nearly always the same story: a group of five or more young men and women go on an outing and get more than they bargained for. The group almost always contains the same set of characters: the good girl and the slut, the jock and the nerd, etc. Suppose for a moment that all of these stories actually happen just so in different places. What would explain the recurring events and patterns?

The Cabin in the Woods answers both questions. The film cuts back and forth between our doomed party animals and a bunch of bureaucrats in some unspecified government installation. We gradually learn that what is about to happen to the former is orchestrated by the latter. Cue the monsters. While horror emerges followed by gore in the cabin, the bureaucrats go about their business in a perfectly businesslike manner. They even have an office pool on which haunted object the victims will activate and thus determine what kind of horror engulfs them.

Better yet, this operation is going on simultaneously in several nations around the globe. While the jock and the whore try to get in some quality time in the woods (is that something horrible staggering toward them?) Japanese school girls in their identical uniforms are running screaming from a ghost with straight black hair, and some Swedes are running from giant trolls.

Why, you might ask, do modern governments need ministries of supernatural atrocities? Isn't it obvious? They keep the demons below the earth from rising and slaughtering everyone. This is demonology reduced to public administration. Civil servants with degrees and maybe a little accounting have replaced druid priests. Administering the ritual at several locations simultaneously is supposed to make sure that at least one of the efforts succeeds.

It has to be done just so at certain specified times, as is the way with rituals. That explains why the cabin in the woods story happens over and over again and why the same type of people have to die in roughly the same order. One of the bureaucrats casually explains that the virgin's death is optional, as long as…

We also learn why the horror world has the set of deadly monsters that it does. Below the operations center is a large menagerie of demons, ghosts, zombies, etc. in tidy technologically secure boxes, all ready to be sent into action as the ritual requires.

This is pure brilliance. The entire horror genre is managed, both literally and figuratively, in such a way as to fit in one narrative context. All the recurring story lines and characters fit neatly into the scheme. It surely ranks as one of the greatest homages to the spooky story ever attempted.

SECOND SPOILER ALERT: I AM ABOUT TO GIVE AWAY THE ENDING.

There is a serious reflection on modern bureaucracy hidden behind all the clever plotting and context. The geeks running monster central think they have everything covered. While directing the murder of innocents and determining the fate of man on earth, they discuss ball games and plan barbeques. As long as things seem to be going according to the agenda, they are absurdly confident. Perhaps this is merely their way of dealing with the stress of the job. It does set them up for disaster on the day when a lot of things go wrong at once.

Of course everything does go wrong. At the end, the two survivors (the virgin and the nerd) are faced with a choice. If the nerd does not sacrifice his life, everyone dies. In a moment of existential irresponsibility, they decide that mankind is not worth saving.

Bureaucracies are essential to civilization. When they work well, they provide security and plenty for plenty of folks. However, they do not allow for and even discourage heroism. The more people who are willing to sacrifice others for the sake of the system, the fewer will be people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for anything more important than themselves. The Cabin in the Woods is very funny and not so funny at all. It is the sort of thing you will love if you love that sort of thing. You could do worse for a Halloween night, days away from an election.

Obama’s Albatross Updated

Romney continues to hold his lead in the Gallup poll. He leads the President by 5% among likely voters and the race is tied 48/48 among registered voters. Here's Jay Cost:

Since the fallout from the first debate in Denver on October 3, Romney has enjoyed a relatively durable lead over the president in the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls. While the lead is small, it has persisted over time, and, more important, history suggests that this is trouble for an incumbent. The only sitting president to mount a last-minute comeback against his challenger was Gerald Ford in 1976, and of course Ford still lost. Usually, late deciders in a presidential campaign either break for the challenger or split about evenly between the two sides.

Of course, another way to put the money quote is that, if Obama wins, he will be the first sitting president to mount a last-minute comeback against his challenger and win. That is to say, I don't put a lot of weight on forecast cues like that one. Still, a reasonable interpretation of the data is that, barring a change, Romney is likely to win the popular vote. Again from Cost:

And what of the state polls? Romney seems to have the edge in states whose electoral votes add up to 261 (with 270 needed for a majority), while Obama has the edge in states that add up to 237. Four states remain true tossups at this writing: Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If Romney carries the states where he has the edge—and wins either Ohio or Wisconsin—he will be elected the 45th president of the United States.

I continue to think what I have thought all along. If either candidate wins the popular vote by more than four percent, that candidate will win in the Electoral College. An electoral/popular vote split is likely only if the latter falls below that threshold. Bush 43 beat Kerry by a little over two percent and won Ohio by nearly the same margin. Ohio might conceivably have gone the other way and given us President Ketchup.

Allow me to state the obvious: Mitt Romney is running a serious risk of winning the election. To be sure, in the three debates Governor Romney succeeded in presenting himself as a viable presidential challenger. But that only matters when the incumbent is damaged. That the Obama campaign has been taking on water is indicated by the first item in Gallup's right hand column. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 50% again and is now three points below his disapproval. Rasmussen confirms Gallup on this score.

So what has damaged Barack Obama? The conservative press and blogosphere has been pushing the Benghazi story hard and many of the same are now arguing that this story is the reason for Obama's decline and Romney's ascent. Color me skeptical.

In the first place, I don't think that something as important as a presidential election should be a referendum on this issue and I don't think that it is likely to become so. If this story does have weight, it would only be because it reminds voters of why they have lost confidence in the President. In fact, Obama's approval rating has been underwater at Gallup for most of the last three years. His recent spike in approval we know to be due to a reweighting of White voters that Gallup decided on after criticism from the Obama campaign.

Jay Cost again has the more plausible explanation for Obama's weakness.

The problem for the president is Romney's strong and sustained lead among independent voters. Despite four years of boasting from the Democrats that they were in the process of transforming the electorate, the fact remains that voters unaffiliated with either party determine the outcome of national elections. And with these voters, Romney has a substantial lead. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows Romney besting Obama by 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent, among unaffiliated voters. Since 1972, the first year of exit polling, no candidate for president has won election while losing independents by such a wide margin.

What is driving this is, above all, Romney's growing advantage on who can best handle the economy. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll gives the Republican a 9-point lead on this issue, which remains the top determinant of most vote choices. The recent Associated Press-GfK poll found Romney with a 6-point lead on the economy among likely voters, as well as an 8-point lead on who can better handle the deficit.

The rise of the Tea Party movement and the Republican surge in the last election were largely responses to the explosion of federal deficits in particular and the dismal economy in general. The economy and the deficits are Obama's albatrosses and those are two weighty avian corpses.

What we don't know is whether there has been a shift in support for Democratic presidential candidates in general among the key states sufficient to sustain Mr. Obama. I would not rule that out, as it would explain Obama's lead in Ohio. It doesn't matter, after all, how the independents break in California. Cost thinks that independents will decide this election as they have previous ones. If he is correct, then Romney will likely suffer the cruel fate of victory in a little over a week.

ps.  Josh Jordan at The Corner has an interesting analysis of Gallup's month-long demographic poll of likely voters.  This poll showed an advantage for Democrats in 2008 that was slightly larger than the actual results: 10% vs. the actual 7%.  October's poll this year showed a Republican advantage of 1%.  It also shows independents breaking Republican by three percent and they seem to be breaking for Romney by a much larger margin.  Plugging those numbers in, Jordan estimates a Romney popular vote victory of 4%.  Oddly enough, that is what Gallup and Rasmussen are finding. 

UPDATE

From Chris Cillizza at the WaPo:

President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)

For Whom the Bell Polls

It occurs to me that we have more information to chew on this time round than ever before and less idea of what is really going on. Polling organizations has proliferated, if not metastasized, without pointing in any coherent direction.

It seems pretty clear that Mitt Romney has enjoyed a significant shift in national polls since the first presidential debate. He leads by just shy of a point in the RCP average. Of the last six polls in the RCP count, only one shows an Obama lead. The most recent three show a Romney lead of 1, 3 and 5 points. The last is the Gallup poll of likely voters. Gallup vigorously defends their likely voter formula, and if they are right then Romney looks to win a popular vote majority.

Unfortunately for Romney, the popular vote has not constitutional significance. The RCP electoral map with no toss-ups gives Obama 290 electoral votes, twenty more than he needs to win. That means that Romney has to win several of the states where polls show him consistently behind, including Ohio.

When we look at the demographics in the various national and state polls, things look better for Romney. He has apparently cut the gender gap down to a small margin or even to fifty/fifty. He seems to be winning the independent vote by substantial margins. Many of the polls showing an Obama lead nationally or in key states show an atypical advantage in Democratic turnout. Meanwhile the Pew poll finds that Republican enthusiasm is the highest it has ever recorded. Gallup finds that Republicans outnumber Democrats by two points (39/37%) among likely voters nationally.

What does all this add up to? I suggest that you read what you want to read. I don't know. If someone gave me a big pile of cash to bet on the outcome, I would place it on Romney; but I wouldn't bet my own money. The awful truth is that I am probably not going to get much sleep the Tuesday after next.

ps.  I have been suffering from a terrible cold. 

Al Novstrup, Corrupt?

I received a mailer today about the District 3 Senate race which pits two current legislators against each other.  Al Novstrup, a Republican, is the incumbent state senator from this district.  Paul Dennert, a long time legislator from District 2, is running against Sen. Novstrup due to redistricting issues.  The mailer I got is supporting Paul Dennert and is paid for by the state Democratic Party

This mailer touts the Center for Public Integrity's "F" rating for South Dakota regarding corruption. This study is a load of crap.  Any study that ranks New Jersey as the least corrupt state and puts California and Illinois near the top while placing South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming near the bottom is simply a joke.  The study ranks states based on the existence of various bureaucracies and laws to regulate political behavior.  In other words, the more complex your government the better you rank.  So it makes sense that states with a history of corruption, like those mentioned above, rank high because they then have all sorts of laws and institutions in place.  Places like Wyoming and the Dakotas which have relatively little history of corruption rank low because we are not overly bureaucratic.  For goodness sakes, the last two governors of Illinois have been convicted of serious crimes and have done time (or will do time), but they rank higher than South Dakota? 

But this is not the least of it.  The mailer claims that Al Novstrup and "his friends" are responsible for this corruption. Need I remind Mr. Dennert and the South Dakota Democratic Party that Mr. Novstrup is the recipient of the 2012 South Dakota Newspaper Association's award for being a champion of open government.  I don't know about his "friends" but the idea that Al Novstrup is a party to corruption is a false and scandelous accusation. 

Prof. Blanchard and I interviewed both Dennert and Novstrup for our NSU TV show. I like both men and think it is a shame that either way this election goes our legislature will lose a very dedicated legislator.  I have been to the cracker barrel meetings around here for over a decade now and I can honestly say that Paul Dennert and Al Novstrup are among the best informed, most articulate, and dedicated legislators in Pierre.  But this mailer is beneath Paul Dennert and he needs to be called on it, as does the South Dakota Democratic Party which seems content to run down our state with bogus studies and to sully the name of a good man for mere political gain. 

 

Final Debate: Quick Thoughts

A tie, which is a win for Romney.  He needed to look presidential and credible.  He did.  The president was fine, but the fact that he came out attacking suggests that the president thinks he is behind.  Romney largely tried to play it safe.  I just saw John King on CNN say the President won on points.  I disagree.  I think it was a push.  Most people do not get into the policy weeds.  The voters approach such things looking for impressions, not policy briefs.  And Romney seemed very credible. 

Sometimes the President (and Romney) tried to get it back to domestic issues. This was a mistake by the president as all previous debates suggest the Romney/Ryan team is stronger on the economy. 

Both candidates looked silly at times trying to make it look like they had starker disagreements on foreign policy matters than they really do.  One most everything outside of Israel I doubt there is that much difference between the two, but they have to create the impression of difference.

Two off-beat things.  When Obama talked about the "border regions" between Afghanistan and Pakistan for one second I thought he said "board of regents."  Is he going after Harvey Jewett?  Also, I am pretty sure in his closing statement Romney quoted Frank Capra's Meet John Doe. He said (I think I have this right), "This nation is the hope of the world."  In John Doe, Gary Cooper says, "Wake up John Does, you are the hope of the world."  You could also say it is Lincoln: "last best hope." 

Update: Oh, Romney's answer on drones was pure crap.  I wonder if will also continue the policy of labling all those killed in drone attacks "combatants" whether they are guilty or innocent, adults or children. 

Update 2: Giants are kicking Cardinal butt.  Bears over Lions 13-0 in the 3rd. 

Update 3: Krauthammer: Clear win tactically and strategically for Romney.  I would agree only to the extent that a tie is a win for Romney.  Otherwise I think Krauthammer exaggerates. 

Update 4: I am with Althouse.  Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue, making it a domestic policy election which is Romney's strength.  As I say, that is the extent to which it is a Romney win.

Update 5: CBS: Obama 53, Romney 23.  I gotta tell you, I don't see it like that at all. 

Update 6: FWIW: The Luntz focus group thinks Romney won the economic parts and Obama the foreign policy parts.  Also, the woman screaming about "four dead in Benghazi" (strike up the CSNY) was clearly "undecided."  Ya, right.

Update 7: CNN: Obama 48, Romney 40. 

Update 8: Sarah Palin time. That means time to switch to CNN.

Update 9: I can't believe Romney never mentioned Obama's habit of skipping his daily intelligence briefing.

Update 10: CNN Internals: Strong leader: Obama 51, Romney 46.  Who is more likeable: Obama 48, Romney 47.  Who attacked more: 68% Obama, 21% Romney. 

George McGovern

On two instances I had the opportunity to write about George McGovern in print and in both cases got to be with him in conjuction with those pieces at the McGovern Library at Dakota Wesleyan University.  In George McGovern: A Political Life I wrote about the 1972 election.  In Plains Political Tradition I wrote a piece on the various U.S. Senators from South Dakota who have lost reelection bids, beginning with McGovern losing to Jim Abdnor in 1980.  As it happens both men have died within a few months of each other. I joked last year at the DW event on the Plains Political Tradition that maybe someday I'd get to write on an election that Mr. McGovern actually won. 

There much to say about George McGovern, but let me just mention on this.  In the 1950s the Democratic Party was virtually non-existent in this state.  George McGovern, then a mere college professor at DW in Mitchell, almost single handedly made a Democratic Party.  Never did the term "grassroots" seem so apropos.  Of course, McGovern would later author an autobiography by that very title.  The South Dakota Democratic Party could use another George McGovern today.  

Perhaps that's the tale that needs to be told in some detail.  It would allow one to write about some elections that George McGovern won.  RIP. 

Benghazigate: Three Scandals for the Price of Two

Benghazigate is three scandals for the very heavy price of two. The first concerns the fact that the diplomatic staff in Libya called for extra security and didn't get it. The only defense the Administration has on that one is to say that embassies and consulates are always calling for more security. That defense deconstructs itself. The administration's job is to decide when such requests should be granted and when not. If you fail to grant such a request and an ambassador is murdered by a terrorist attack, then you blew it big time. VP in charge of sighs and sneers, Joe Biden, assures us that neither he nor the President new of the requests. I believe him. Without attending his national security meetings, how would the President know anything about it?

The Administration is wisely withholding comment until an investigation is concluded, since the results will not be released until after the election.

The second scandal concerns the Administration's full court press to convince all of us that the blame for the attack falls on the infamous film. Ambassador Rice's words aside, President Obama and his staff spent weeks talking about an anti-Islam film clip when it was clear from day two that the wave of protests had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. Either the Administration was lying or the Administration was incompetent. These aren't mutually exclusive.

The third scandal, more important and therefore largely neglected, is what Benghazigate says about the President's Libya policy. Destroying the Gaddafi regime from the air may be regime change on the cheap, but it left us with precious little influence on the ground. Libya is now crawling with heavily armed militias over which the government, such as it is, has no control. Apparently some of these militias are Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, blowback from the collapse of Gaddafi's regime has destabilized nearby Mali.

The Administration's war in Libya has left the region in rather worse shape than before, not to mention killing the War Powers Act dead. The President launched that war while on spring break in South America. Whatever he was doing back then, he wasn't spending much time in foreign policy briefings and he wasn't thinking his Libya policy through. Ambassador Stevens has paid with his life for the President's policy. That might not be the biggest price that will come due.

part of that world

If we should end up with Mitt Romney as President, we can at least hope for some entertainment. Here is Mitt at the Al Smith dinner.

If that's not entertaining enough, try a lot of dad's singing "Part of that world" from the Little Mermaid.

Actual South Dakota Politics

Here's a news story from last week on Matt Varilek, the Democratic challenger to Kristi Noem.  It features some quotes by my favorite political scientist, me.  I should note that when I say in the article that Kristi Noem is not responsible for the farm bill I mean that she is not the floor manager of the bill, unlike Tom Daschle and the ethanol issue from the 2004 election.  But I think the article gives some of the strengths and weaknesses of Varilek as a candidate. 

The only poll we've seen on this race (someone correct me if I am wrong) is the Nelson poll that Ken posted here. That poll had Noem up by almost six.  Given that the Nelson poll had the governor race neck and neck two years ago, I am not sure I believe this number.  I do not get a sense that Kristi Noem is beloved amongst South Dakotans (as John Thune is, or Tom Daschle once was), but my sense is that Varilek still has low name recognition and just will not be able to get over the hump.  One thing we have seen over the last two years, though, is that Kristi Noem better get more serious about earning her legislative chops or one day there will be a different election environment with a higher quality challenger and she is going to get rude wake-up call.

In Congress, say the text books, there are three types of career paths that a member might take.  One is that of craftsman of legislation.  That's what Tim Johnson has done.  The other is leadership.  That is the path the Thune and Daschle paved.  Lastly, there is constituency service.  I think you could argue Tim Johnson has also filled this role. I still don't know which path Noem plans on taking. 

Halloween Movie Guide 2012

I actually got a request this year for my annual Halloween movie guide. Use that link to go back to the last updated version, from 2009. Here I will offer a list of ten very good movies for the grim holiday, in no particular order. I have provided links to reviews that I have posted.

1.    Bubba Ho Tep. This is my favorite movie. Bruce Campbell plays an aging Elvis (or Elvis impersonator) stuck in a retirement home. Along with a Black guy who thinks he's JFK (Ozzie Davis) Elvis battles a life-sucking mummy wearing cowboy boots. Trust me on this one: it is superb.

2.    The Ring/Ringu. Both the American version of the film and the original Japanese version are examples of high art in the genre. A journalist races time to find the secret of a tape that curses anyone who watches it.

3.    Pulse. Avoid the American version and go for the subtitled Japanese original. This is a truly creepy story of a world invaded by gobbling ghosts.

4.    The Eye. An exquisitely beautiful, eerie, and sad film from Hong Kong. A women receives a cornea transplant that carries with it the ability to see both ghosts and approaching disasters. Again, avoid the American version.

5.    Let The Right One In. A very original interpretation of the vampire tale from Sweden. A bullied young man befriends a girl who is, let us say, a friend indeed. The original is recommended, but the American version, Let Me In, is a slavish copy and for that reason just about as good.

6.    Troll Hunter. A very fine, very unexpected movie from Norway.

7.    Paranormal Activity. One of the most successful of the recent flood of "found footage" films. Here is a bit from one of the comments: "Holy Shhhhh cow! My wife and I are from Atlanta and we saw this movie tonight. She will not go to sleep or walk through the house without me. She covered her eyes more than 1 time and almost walked out of the movie. I DO NOT get scared easily and found myself almost not wanting to watch in fear of whats going to happen when the lights go out."

8.    Demon Knight. A Tales From The Crypt movie. Heroic demon hunter wanders the world with the secret that keeps all of us safe from the darkness. I love this movie.

9.    Death Note. Another Japanese masterpiece. This one is several hours long on two DVDs. It is really a mystery in form with a heavy supernatural element. If you have got the time, have I got the film.

10.    Absentia. The subtitle to my post says it all: "A Dark and Flawless Modern Fairy Tale.

Any of the above will entertain you this Halloween.

ADDENDUM

One subgenre of horror that I am very pleased to see growing is that of the short film.  The industry hasn't yet figured out how to deliver 12 minute gems in a way that generates a cash flow and so a lot of short films that I have heard about are hard to get. 

However, there is a growing access.  Fear.net has an excellent offering of short films that you can watch for free on their website.  Try Tinglewood.  YouTube also has a collection, peppered with trailers. 

Candy Crowley: "Romeny Was Right In The Main."

Too bad you didn't figure this out until AFTER putting your thumb firmly on the scale.

 

Second to last tango

If Obama wins the Presidency, we won't look back on this debate as the moment he did it, as my disgruntled colleague suggests. But he didn't lose it tonight. Obama was much better prepared. It may have been the first time in his life he actually had to study for an exam. He spent a lot less time looking at his shoes.

Romney was pretty much the same guy who showed up at the first debate: well informed, reasonably quick on his feet, a little over excited and repetitive at times. He did a very good job of focusing on Obama's dismal economic record, though not as good as I think he could have done. I thought Romney was a head slightly through most of the debate until the Benghazi question. At that point the advantage turned to Obama and he held onto it.

Obama ducked the question and gave us a lot of highly peppered word salad. Romney could have pointed that out, saying something like: if I ever have to answer such a terrible question, I won't try to avoid it. He could have laid out the simple fact that the Administration couldn't get its story straight for weeks. He could have pointed out that the Administration's idea of dealing with the debacle was go after an idiot who made a film that had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of the Ambassador.

But he didn't. He got bogged down over the word "terrorist" and that allowed Obama to slip out of the net. Jon is dead spot on about moderator Candy Crowley's interjection at that point. It was inexcusable. It was not her job to take sides or correct either participant. And as Jon said, she was clearly wrong.

All that said, I think Obama might actually suffer from Romney's failure on the Benghazi question. Every story about the debate is going to mention the question and thus keep the issue on the front pages for days more. If Romney had a stronger answer, it would actually be easier for the sympathetic press to ignore it.

I am guessing that this debate marginally helps Obama in so far as he recovered from the first one. That helps shore up his base. I don't see any reason to expect that it will do more than that.

Update: I withdraw the word "disgruntled" above.

Update: as Jon notes, the CNN spot poll gives the win to Obama but the issues to Romney.  He wins big on the economy (58/40), taxes (51/44), and marginally on health care and "strong leader".  If that is really what the voters take away from this debate, Romney wins big again. 

Debate: Short Take

Obama just won the presidency tonight.  Also, Candy Crowley was awful.  The fact the she openly sided with Obama on the "Rose Garden Speech" was both horribly inappropriate and...totally wrong.  That is the most heinous piece of "moderating" that I have ever seen.  You can see the facts here and here is the actual speech where Obama alludes vaguely to "terrorism" but he does NOT call the act in Benghazi a terrorist attack.  In fact, for days afterwards Obama specifically refused to call it act of terrorism.   That said, Romney butchered what should have been a slam dunk.  BTW, I have CNN on now and the repeating the falsehood and totally misrepresenting what Romeny said.  Sadly, Romney got his ass handed to him by a falsehood. 

 Update: Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, just called President Obama a liar.  Point blank.  And you know what, he's right.  And Candy Crowley apparently is too ill informed to know it.  BTW, I do think Priebus should not use that particular word.

Update 2: CBS says Obama wins 37-31, but Romney on the economy 65-34. 

Update 3: So, aside from the Libya debacle for Romney, why do I think Obama did so well?  Part of that is what went wrong with Romney.  He asked the president a direct question three times (I think) and each time he ended up looking a fool.  Second, the questions by these "undecided" voters were clearly slanted in president's favor.  There was the Steve Chu question that was a set up for Romney.  But the equal pay, outsourcing, guns, and Bush questions were clearly from a liberal premise.  And then there was the guy who asked Obama this really tough question: "Why should I vote for you?"  How can you NOT hit that out of the park?  Obama is a good stump speaker and that's what he got to do tonight.  I must say that Romeny might have pulled even, or actually won, if he had just stopped asking President Obama questions that Obama could manipulate to make himself look good and Romney look foolish. 

Update 4: For what it is worth, Fat Boy...I mean Frank Luntz's focus group is pro-Romney.  Wow, you gotta look at the crappy artwork behind Luntz.  Also, the way that the "special sauce" on his tie looks like Richard Nixon.  Ha, there is a guy who says he voted for Obama in 2012, but the presient won by lying and "bullshitting."  Yep, sounds like an Obama voter to me. 

Update 5: Detroit up 2-1 in the 9th.  If Verlander blows this my night is ruined. 

Update 6: CNN: Obama wins 46-39.

Update 7: The Tigers are like Obama: After trying hard to lose they win a squeeker.

Update 8: Althouse:  "Obama's supporters may want to say this is enough. I don't think so. But what is certainly plain is that Crowley's manipulation of the event was unjustifiable. The bias from the moderator tonight was disgusting. But I'm sure it was worth it to her to squander her reputation to help Obama out of what was a very uncomfortable jam."

Update 9: From Charles Cooke: Weird CNN poll results: Obama wins 46-39. But Romney 58-40 on economy; 51-44 taxes; 49-46 healthcare; 59-36 on deficit. Vote for? Tied 25-25...Also from CNN poll: Who is the stronger leader? Romney wins 49-46.

Update 10: From Elizabeth Foley at Instapundit: "Crowley’s intervention to support Obama, in my opinion, was inappropriate, unfair, and lop-sided.  She acted like a cheerleader, and as a result of her unprofessional conduct, she provoked pro-Obama folks in the audience to clap, which further amplified the unprofessional, gang-bang on this important issue."

Romney Up By Four

Two polls show Romney up by four points. The PPP poll for the Daily Kos is the most surprising, showing Romney with 50% and Obama with 46%. That smooths out a really big Sunday lead for Romney over three days. The caveat here is that Kos reports the internals as 44% conservative and 16% liberal. Conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1 in the US, but not three to one.

However, Gallup shows the same 50/46% advantage for Romney in its seven day average of likely voters.

Confusion Engendered

I am not sure that I have any substantial disagreement with Jon about the state of the race at present, except that he is more confident than I am about what is going to happen. It looks like Romney is ahead nationally by a hair but still behind Obama by a couple of hairs in Ohio. That should mean that Obama has the edge.

One interesting thing is to compare the popular vote within states to the popular vote nationally in recent elections. Democratic candidates win California by a much larger popular margin than their share of the national vote, regardless of who wins. Republicans enjoy a similar advantage in Texas. That's how we color in the electoral real estate.

This year Ohio is ground zero in everyone's calculations in part because the opposite is true in the last two elections. Bush 43 beat Kerry by about 2.5% nationally and carried Ohio by 2%. Obama beat McCain by 7 points nationally and 5 points in Ohio. However, Ohio went for Bush 43 by 3.5% in 2000, when Bush actually lost the national vote by less than one percent. Right now, Obama seems to be doing marginally better in Ohio than nationally, which I think makes Ohio hard to game.

It does occur to me, from these reflections, that we might see a situation where one party or the other achieves an Electoral College lock. All that has to happen is for enough states to become more like California and Texas: more biased than the national majority. Presumably, at this point, the Democrats would be more likely to get it. Still, such a lock would only produce an electoral winner/popular vote loser in very close elections. If, however, the state by state bias were small enough and the overall electorate stabilized near 50/50, Electoral College/popular vote divergence might become more common. I am too lazy to explore the math, but that doesn't stop me from musing.

While still musing, it's hard not to be awestruck by Romney's improvement among women in the polls. Here's USAToday on their recent swing state poll with Gallup:

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee has pulled within one point of the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-49%, and leads by 8 points among men…

"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney" since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. "Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them."…

The USA TODAY findings are consistent with a nationwide Pew Research Center Poll taken after the first presidential debate and released last week. Obama's 18-point lead among women in mid-September evaporated in Pew's October survey, showing him tied 47%-47% with Romney among female likely voters.

Beeg wow. Obama won men by a point in 2008 and women by thirteen points. According to this poll of swing states, confirmed by other polls, the numbers are now reversed. I have no idea what this means. A four point lead overall in the swing states doesn't mean that Romney will win enough of them to seal the deal. It surely means that he has dramatically improved his chances of winning enough of them.

If the gender gap for Obama has really evaporated nationally, as Pew finds, shouldn't Romney be well ahead in national polls? This year we have more information than ever before and less idea of what is really going on.

Teleology & Efficient Causation in Biology

If you want to know what a college is supposed to be, spend some time on the third floor of the Tech Center at NSU. On Friday Professor Schaff and I sat in my office discussing the difference between the concepts of the cosmos and of the universe and the limits on legitimate teleological explanations in biology. A third colleague of ours joined in the discussion and, in effect, so did a fourth: the cosmos/universe distinction was put forth by someone who was not present.

As I understand the first question, both terms stand for the whole of things in space and time (excluding alternative universes or a God who stands outside space and time). To call this whole a cosmos is to imply that it is ordered and coherent in the same way as a beating human heart is ordered and coherent. To call the whole a universe is to avoid any such suggestion. The universe may be a disordered mess without any hierarchy or coherence of any kind. I apologize to my absent colleague if I got this wrong.

I am not entirely comfortable with the terminology. The term universe can also imply coherent order just as the term university does. However, I accept the distinction and I think it is important, though I will not tip my hand on this one. The suggestion was made that a cosmos has to involve teleology, which is to say that its order must be understood in terms of the ends or goals which that order serves. At that point I stated that teleology is indeed involved in biological explanations.

There the discussion shifted to a more specific question: taking Darwinian theory seriously, what counts as a telos or goal in organic activities? It was put forth that survival is a Darwinian telos. I argued to the contrary and what follows is my argument after a little thinking.

Aristotle distinguished four basic kinds of explanations, of which only two concern us here. Consider the flight of an arrow from the bow to the target. An efficient explanation goes like this: the energy imparted by the bow string to the arrow was sufficient to carry the arrow in the right direction and far enough to reach the bulls eye. A teleological explanation focuses on the intentions of the archer: he hit the target because that is what he was aiming at. The two kinds of explanations are not in any way at odds with one another; they are simply answers to different questions.

Although this position is not uncontroversial in the philosophy of biology, I think that teleological explanations are entirely appropriate and indeed essential in biology. The growth of an animal from its original cell is an end-directed process. Countless subordinate processes are constantly being redirected toward the telos: a mature adult. Likewise, when a bull elk pursues a cow in heat, his actions are guided by a pre-programed goal. The philosopher of biology Ernst Mayr called such program-guided processes teleomatic.

Now for the question: is survival among the teloi, if not the telos, of biological processes? I say no. First, survival is purely subordinate to successful reproduction in Darwinian biology. Secondly, the bull is neither trying to survive nor trying to produce offspring. What he is trying to do is mate. That is the telos of his amorous actions. Okay, but isn't reproduction the reason for his actions? Yes, but this is an efficient rather than a teleological explanation.

An efficient explanation begins with some action or event and works backward in time to articulate the causes that produced it. The arrow flew because first the string pushed it. The string pushed it because first the archer pulled it back and then let it go. It doesn't matter where you start in time, with the arrow, the string, or the biceps, efficient explanation works backwards in time.

A teleological explanation proceeds forward in time from the action to the goal that the action was intended to achieve. The archer releases the string at time T1 because he intended the arrow to reach the target at T2.

The bull's amorous pursuit is explained teleologically by the goal that he is trying to achieve in the near future: mating. If we could read the elk's DNA coherently, we would find a set of genetic information adding to a schema that guides mating behavior, predator avoidance, etc. What we wouldn't find is language coding for survival of the individual or the species.

How do survival and successful reproduction figure in as explanations? The bull behaves as he does because his father behaved that way. Every existing organism is the offspring of an unbroken line of successful breeders. Natural selection is efficient causation, not teleological causation.

This distinction is rather important. Critics of Darwinism frequently argue that it is brutish because it reduces all values to the mere struggle to survive and reproduce. This is flat wrong. Fitness for survival and reproduction are not values in any sense in the theory. They are efficient forces that explain how the forms of the various organisms emerge and are sustained.

I think that I and my colleagues came to some agreement on this, but as a result of that conversation I have clarified my own thoughts. If you want to know what a college really is, that would be it.

Is Romney Really Ahead

Right now, the RCP average has Romney up 1.3%.  I believe for the first time this election, every poll that makes up the average is either in Romney's favor or tied (two of them are).  That tells me that Romney is ahead nationally, if by the narrowest of margins.  And as Ken has mentioned numerous times, it is a bad sign for Obama that he consistently scores below 50%.  Even if Obama wins this thing, it will be by a margin far narrower than four years ago.

But is Romney in the truest sense winning?  When you look at the RCP Electoral College map, Obama still has a lead of 201-181, with a large number, 156, undecided.  Nate Silver's model is, as it has been throughout, more favorable to Obama.  While his popular vote model has Obama winning by the slimest of margins, 49.9-49.0, his Electoral College prediction magnifies that lead (as it usually does) by giving Obama 285.4 to Romney's 252.6 (why doesn't he round those numbers?).   

When we look at this state-by-state we can see the reasons behind the RCP vs. Nate Silver discrepency.  RCP, for example, is now listing Michigan and Pennsylvania as swing states.  Silver says Obama has a 93% shot at winning Michigan and a 90% shot of winning Pennsylvania. Those are not "swing state" percentages.  Even giving Romney Florida, Virginia and Colorado (all of which Silver gives a narrow lead to Romney) leaves Romney at 257, not enough.  This makes Ohio crucial.  Silver is still giving Obama a 65% shot of winning Ohio.  Romney, let's make clear, with near certainty cannot win the presidency without Ohio.  Well, I should point out that if he lost Ohio but won Wisconsin and Iowa he'd also win, but I find it very hard to believe Romney wins those two states while losing Ohio.  Indeed, I find it hard to believe Romney wins Wisconsin (all recent polls show Obama with a slim lead there). 

Right now Silver says that there is a 4.6% chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.  I could easily see that happening.  Romney's support is not as geographically diverse as Obama's.  I can see Obama winning many key states, like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, etc, by slim margins (again, they will certainly be slimmer than four years ago) while Romney cleans up with huge majorities all over the South, and perhaps even surprisingly large majorities in Florida and North Carolina (I am not talking huge, but perhaps beyond what people are expecting). 

In short, while Obama trails in the popular vote by a very slim margin, I still consider him the favorite.  Ken is not as fond of Silver's model as I am, but I find Silver's prediction of 62% chance of an Obama win just about right.  Romney is at 37% (I have rounded) chance of winning.  That means there are a handful of realistic scenarios in which he wins (note how closely his chance of winning the whole enchilada tracks with his chance of winning Ohio), but as I have been saying for about six months now, Obama STILL has an easier track to 270 than Romney.

Note that all data in this post is time sensitive.  These models change every day.  If you follow the links you may find the numbers different than I have posted here.   Further note that somehow I missed Ken's post below that makes similar but not really as eloquent arguments.   

Obama & Caligula

When I grow up I want to be Mark Steyn.

"The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan."

Thus, Stephanie Cutter, President Obama's deputy campaign manager, speaking on CNN about an armed attack on the 9/11 anniversary that left a U.S. consulate a smoking ruin and killed four diplomatic staff, including the first American ambassador to be murdered in a third of a century. To discuss this event is apparently to "politicize" it and to distract from the real issues the American people are concerned about. For example, Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on Thursday:

"There's only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane."

She's right! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets. Sure, Caligula put his horse in the Senate, but it was a real horse. At Ohio State University, the rapper will.i.am introduced the President by playing the Sesame Street theme tune, which, oddly enough, seems more apt presidential walk-on music for the Obama era than "Hail To The Chief."

At least Caligula's senator was a real horse. That is brilliance. Unfortunately, it is also observation.

Electoral College Dropout

A specter from of old is casting its morbid shadow over the realm of polls. I am speaking, of course, of the possibility that one candidate (Barack Obama) will lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. Just right now this specter seems to be taking visible form.

Mitt Romney is very slightly ahead in national polls of likely voters. Of the eight polls listed at the Real Clear Politics page, only one shows Obama with a lead (1%). That is also the oldest poll. The remaining seven give Romney a lead between 4% and a tie. Romney's lead is of course within the margin of error in all these polls, but taken together they certainly suggest that he would win the popular vote by at least a hair. Or at least he would if the election were held next Tuesday.

The Electoral College, however, actually determines the winner. Here Obama still enjoys an advantage even if it has been steadily shrinking. Romney is surging in Florida. He is showing slight leads in Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado. Obama still enjoys a slight lead in Ohio, which everyone seems to think is the key state in the electoral vote game.

The Real Clear Politics electoral map gives Obama/Biden (solid + likely + leaning) 201 electoral votes. It gives Romney/Ryan 181. That leaves 156 votes in the "toss up" category. RCP is being rather generous in their toss up criteria. If Obama wins Missouri or Romney wins Michigan, that will probably mean a landslide in one direction or the other. The encouraging news for the Romney camp is that more toss up states are shifting red than blue. The discouraging news for Mitt is that the RCP map with no toss ups gives Obama/Biden 294 electoral votes, 24 more than the magic 270.

I am not persuaded by the argument that the electorate has already made up its mind. I think that significant shifts in undecided/independent voters are possible and even likely. If one of the two tickets is four or five points ahead nationally as election day approaches, that ticket will win Ohio and enough of the remaining swing states to add up to an Electoral College victory.

Only if the election is very, very close, indicated by a tie in the national polls, do the state by state numbers become decisive. If the national polls on November2nd are where they are now, we would be in that situation. It is entirely possible that Barack Obama will be reelected while losing the popular vote. There is no reason to expect the opposite scenario.

I am not saying that this is likely, only that it is possible. If it should happen, allow me to pronounce judgment in advance. The rules are the rules. I like the Electoral College and I accept its outcome even if denies victory to the ticket that most voters preferred. I won't grumble about an "unelected President" as many on the opposite side of the aisle did after the 2000 election. I expect that almost all conservatives and most Republicans will do the same. We won't be babies about it.

South Dakota Politics

I received a nice South Dakota poll summary from Nelson Brothers Polling. It includes no surprises. I thought I should post the results. On the Presidential race:

In the NBP survey, running from October 1 to October 5, 2012, Republican candidate Mitt Romney leads by 10.5 percent (51.6 to 41.1 percent) over President Barack Obama, with 7.2 percent "undecided." Romney led Obama by 53.9 to 38.7 percent in the NBP 2012 Labor Day Survey.

NBP also asked participants to evaluate President Obama's job performance. Overall, 43.2 percent of respondents approve of his performance. Among those who approve, 26.4 percent say they "strongly approve," and 16.8 percent "somewhat approve." Of the 56.8 percent who disapprove, 46.8 percent "strongly disapprove." The president's approval ratings have remained fairly steady in NBP polls in the last few months, with 45.0 percent in the July NBP survey and 42.9 in the September NBP survey.

Look out! Obama's catching up. I cautiously predict that Romney will carry South Dakota's three electoral votes. The other news of national significance:

In the South Dakota US House race, Republican Representative Kristi Noem leads Democratic challenger Matt Varilek by 5.7 percent (49.3 to 43.6 percent) with 7.1 percent "undecided." This lead is down from her 50.8 to 42.0 percent lead in the NBP Labor Day Survey.

The NBP survey shows Representative Kristi Noem's job approval at 53.4 percent, compared with 54.7 percent approval in September. Of those who approve, 24.4 percent "strongly approve," and 29.0 percent "somewhat approve." 46.6 percent disapprove of Noem's job performance, with 28.9 percent saying they "strongly disapprove," and 17.7 percent saying they "somewhat disapprove."

Take heart, Cory. However, this suggests that Noem will very probably be reelected. Here are some further stats:

Incumbent Republican Chris Nelson again holds a strong advantage over Democrat Nick Nemic by 26.4 percent (55.1 percent to 28.7 percent), with 16.2 percent "undecided," in one of South Dakota's two races for Public Utilities Commissioner (PUC).

In the second PUC contest, Libertarian candidate Russell Clarke appears to pull support from Republican Kristie Fiegen, narrowing her advantage over Democratic challenger Matt McGovern. Fiegen now leads by 2.1 percent, with 38.6 percent of support, over McGovern's 36.5 percent, and Clarke's 8.5 percent. 16.4 percent of respondents say they are "undecided." Last month, without Clarke's name in the survey, Fiegen enjoyed a 10.5 percent advantage (47.0 to 36.5 percent).

NBP continues to ask whether voters support the Republican or the Democratic state senate candidate in their legislative district. The generic Republican senate candidates hold a 43.7 to 37.0 percent lead in NBP's October survey, with 19.3 percent "undecided." Measured by region, Republican candidates lead by 10.9 percent (47.1 to 36.2 percent) among West River voters, by 10.2 percent (44.6 to 34.4 percent) in the Sioux Falls Metro area (Minnehaha and Lincoln counties), and by 1.1 percent (40.9 to 39.8 percent) East River outside of Metro Sioux Falls.

It would probably be better for South Dakota if the Democrats were in better shape. They are in the same old shape.

Meanwhile, I recommend that you watch about an hour of riveting TV. Spotlight@Northern hosted the candidates for State Senate from District Three: H. Paul Dennert and Al Novstrup. You can watch the show at this link: http://www.northern.edu/about/Pages/nsutv.aspx.

This show, if I do say so myself, is an excellent presentation of two local legislators. I was very impressed by both our guests. They are intelligent, articulate, and serious men. South Dakota is a republic. We ought to remind ourselves from time to time of how magnificent an achievement that is. Give it an hour.

Biden Time

I think that Jon's scoring the debate was pretty close, though I slightly prefer Charles Krauthammer's take. If you read the transcript, it was a tie. On radio, Biden wins. On TV, Ryan wins. I would add that all of these involve small margins.

Ryan seemed to tire out near the end. He could have done much better on the religion and abortion question. Biden exposed more problems overall, due mostly to the fact that he is the incumbent and has an actual record to defend. I note one glaring admission: he says that "we", meaning, presumably, the President and himself, were not told that the consulate in Benghazi requested more security. Isn't this something the President should know? Here's my suggestion for an ad:

Under President Obama, thousands of lethal weapons were delivered to Mexican drug lords by the U.S. Government. But don't blame the President. He didn't know anything about it. Under President Obama, the State Department refused to provide the security that the consulate in Benghazi pleaded for just before the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens. But don't blame President Obama. He didn't know anything about it.

I doubt that this debate will have much impact. CNN's spot poll gave Ryan the victory 48-44%. With a 5% margin of error, Wolfe Blitzer called that a tie, but by that logic anything short of a blowout for one debater would be a statistical tie. CBS did an online poll that gave the victory 50-31% to Biden. It's hard to game those two polls.

I am guessing that post debate polls in the next couple of days will show something like a tie. That may help the Obama campaign "staunch the bleeding," if only because it cleanses the pallet of the first debate taste. Only a blowout for either side would have been really significant.

A lot of weight rides on the last debate. How much will depend on the polls over the coming week.

UPDATE: here is a list of instant polls from Michael Barone:

The instant polls: CNBC had it Ryan 56%-36%, CBS Biden 50%-31%, CNN Ryan 48%-44%, AP Ryan 51%-43%.

If you are inclined to think that the instant polls are not worth taking seriously, I would remind you that the polls taken after the last debate were dead spot on.  This list suggests that Ryan won by a large margin where it counts. 

Quick Take VP Edition

I am with Ann Althouse.  This debate was annoying.  The constant interuptions from Biden and the moderator made this almost unwatchable.  This may be the classic case that depending on how you got the debate radically effects how you thought it went.  If you just heard the debate, I think Biden won on points.  If you saw the debate, Biden was such a horse's ass that I can't believe it went over well.  I have some support for this view.  When David Gregory and Piers Morgan think you are acting like a jerk, it's a sign that you may be acting like a jerk.  Apparently CNN had trackers and at least early on Biden, while I think winning on substance, was tracking low, I assume because he was so obnoxious in his body language.  I was watching CSPAN, so if someone knows otherwise please comment.  I guess I agree with Althouse:

That debate was so annoying! Some of the CNN commentators are talking about how Biden did what he came to do, to fire up the Democrats. "This was not for the independents," says Van Jones. Okay, well, but independents were watching, and Biden was horribly rude. He created this disturbing atmosphere of anxiety.

Update: OK, I can't figure out how to unblock this text.  For what it's worth, the Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News I think gives a narrow win to Biden (I didn't see him ask the question, so I am getting this from the tenor of the conversation).  But the preponderance of opinion (but not universal) is that Biden was also a jerk.  I wonder if this is like Gore in the first and third debates in 2000.  Gore won those debates based on command of material, but his body language and sighing was so obnoxious that he got little benefit, in fact probably lost ground.  No one in Luntz's focus group of undecideds definately decided whom to vote for tonight.  Also, Frank Luntz is wearing a suit that is about three sizes too small.  I feel bad for the buttons on his suit coat. 

Update 2: Apparently the CNN panel thinks that Ryan won on style, vindicating my take.  I should say I think it is a draw, but that Biden being a jerk probably cost him a clear win.  OK, I am now watching CNN and their instant poll has Ryan winning, 48-44, so as I just typed (I swear I typed it before I saw the poll) the people are split.  That seems about right to me. (I got the CNNpoll wrong.  It was 48-44 Ryan.)

Update 3: BTW, I am watching CNN because Sarah Palin is coming on Fox and as a political commentator she has very nice hair. 

Update 4: More Twitter feed on Biden's smirking.

Update 5: From Charles W. Cooke's Twitter feed:"From what I can see: CNN Focus Group has Ryan 33-33 Biden; CNN Poll is 48-44; CNBC Poll is 56-36; CBS poll is 31-50. Correct?"

Update 6: By the way, is Joe Biden really under the impression that Syria has more land mass than Libya? 

Update 7: Andrew Sullivan calls it for Biden.

Update 8: Peter Robinson think Biden was a jerk, but that because he was more aggressive that equals a win.

Update 9: CNN: 21% more likely to vote for Biden.  28% say Romney.  50% say neither.  1% said mularky. 

Update 10: In other news, Orioles up 2-1 in 13th. Internal Update: Orioles win.

Update 11: For the love of Pete, on Fox they are talking to...Paul Ryan's nephew who looks like he's about 10.

Update 12: Rove says that Biden brought energy, but why did it take the #2 guy to do that?  I take that to say Biden won.  He says Ryan was more substantive, which is a concession that Ryan got pushed around. 

You will have to Reelect Him to find out what’s in Him

I updated a recent post by mentioning Brit Hume and how his characterization of Obama's debate performance was similar to mine: yes, the President was weak, but he was pretty much the fellow we have been watching and listening to for four years. He is a lot of fun when reading a teleprompter to a jazzed up crowd, but not so much when he has to think on his feet.

I think that Romney's oratorical strength and Obama's weakness were both exaggerated by the Left and the Right. See Commentary's John Podhoretz for confirmation.  If I am right, the question is why. Three polls now register the effect of the debate. The two candidates are tied in Rasmussen and Gallup's three-day tracking poll. Gallup is tracking registered voters, which means it probably confirms the most exciting poll for Romney supporters. The Pew poll has Romney ahead by four points. There seems to be similar movement in swing-state polls, though we will have to wait for that. The bottom line is that Romney got a significant bump from the debate.

The Pew poll shows what nearly everyone acknowledges: Romney won the debate by a wide margin (72-14%). Gallup has it 72-20%.

That 52-point gap was the largest the polling outfit has ever seen, topping even Bill Clinton's 42-point margin over George H. W. Bush in 1992.

So why do I think that Romney's debate victory has been oversold? In large part because the President's strength at this point in the campaign has been greatly exaggerated by the press and that exaggeration has been internalized by a lot of Republicans.

Consider the Battleground poll. Romney trails the President by a statistically insignificant point. However, almost all of the calls on which that poll is based were made before the debate. Romney may well have pulled even with his opponent in the week leading up to Denver. In fact, that poll is very good news for the Governor.

Only 73 percent who support Obama say they are "extremely likely" to vote, compared to 86 percent who back Romney. Likewise, 84 percent of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.

Among those extremely likely to vote, Romney actually leads Obama 52 percent to 46 percent. That's up from a 2-point lead last week. Obama led 50 percent to 47 percent among this group three weeks ago…

Romney now leads among independents by 16 points, 51 percent to 35 percent. This is up from 4 points last week. But he still trails in the overall head-to-head numbers because of near monolithic support for Obama among minority Democrats.

The President carried a significant lead over Romney through pretty much all of September. On the basis of those horse race numbers, you'd have had to bet that he was going to be reelected. However, as I and others have been pointing out, the President was at 50% or below in almost all of those polls. Obama's numbers haven't changed but Romney began gaining ground at the end of September. He was in fact closing on Obama before last Wednesday.

Dispirited Republicans and hopeful Democrats both accepted a narrative that exaggerated Romney's disadvantage going into the debate. When the two appeared together on the Denver stage, the rubber band snapped. Republicans realized they had a not half bad candidate who looked pretty good opposite Barack Obama. Independents leaning toward Romney turned on the debate looking for a reason to be comfortable with their lean and Romney gave it to them. What explains the exaggerated criticism of Obama's performance by Democrats?

The debate was the first good look at Mitt Romney for a lot of Americans. Oddly enough, I think the same thing was true of Barack Obama. No American politician has ever been more carefully or more persistently packaged than this man. He is, after all, the fellow who won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing even the smallest thing for the cause of peace. A lot of Democrats in Congress, in the Press, and at large, have had good reason to wonder what the President has been doing while in office. Maybe last Wednesday was the moment that they all began to wonder about that at the same time.

Much of the friendly fire directed toward Mr. Obama came in this form: he had lots of opportunities to nail Romney and failed to exploit them. Okay. But the things they wish he had done on stage were the same things he has been relentlessly doing from podiums around the country and in millions of dollars of TV time for months. You'd think it would have worked by now. These are the same people who complained that the President needed to go out and defend ObamaCare at a time when he was doing just that (in front of a teleprompter) a dozen times a week. If you keep defending a failing messenger, what does that say about the message? Maybe last Wednesday was the moment that Democrats realized that they might soon have to choose whether to throw the messenger or the message overboard.

If you don't believe me, ask Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Writing in the New Republic, Lemann closes with this:

After the election, the chance that Obama will feel that he has finally been set free to let the world see who he really is and what he really believes is nil. But it's also a safe bet that his core convictions are not those of the old Democratic Leadership Council. Romney palpably wishes to restore American hegemony in the world; Obama (drone attacks and dead Osama bin Laden or not) does not. Romney believes in business as the core institution in society in a way that Obama does not. We will surely find out something more about Obama's convictions and his priorities in the six months after Election Day—not before. As to what that will be, it's hard to think of any politician running for reelection about whom the question is more difficult to answer.

In other words, you will have to reelect him to find out what's in him. That is about as blistering an indictment of an incumbent as ever I have seen. After four years of Obama in the Oval Office, the dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism still doesn't know what Obama believes. I cannot agree with Lemann. We won't learn anything at all about Obama six months from now that we don't already know, whether he is returned or not. I am sure that that paragraph is one more expression of anxieties that are surfacing in the Democratic pool just now.

I don't know how genuine Romney's surge is or whether it will last. I do think we have been laboring under the burden of distorted narratives, both before and after the debates.

Obama’s Dreadful Record on Jobs

For reasons that Meagan McArdle points out, the conservative charge that the Bureau of Labor Statistics cooked the recent unemployment numbers is very improbable. You'd have to believe that the BLS was willing to take an enormous risk at a date that is probably too late to do a lot of good. Color me skeptical on both counts.

That the unemployment rate measured by the Household Survey fell below 8% surely provides the Obama campaign with a talking point. Even before scrutinizing the fine print, this is a pretty weak brag. I have heard at least three Obama spokespersons say that the unemployment rate is the lowest since the President took office. While that sounds okay, what it means is that three years after the great recession officially ended, we have just now got back to where we started. That alone indicates a very dismal recovery.

The fine print looks a lot worse. The household survey is notoriously volatile. A drop from 8.1 to 7.8% is statistically insignificant. The survey also indicates that the change was mostly due to people taking part time jobs. The Labor Department revised upwards the number of jobs added July through September to 146,000 per month. September's numbers may be revised upwards as well, but last month's numbers are likely to be below the average for this year. This year is below the monthly average for last year (153,000).

To appreciate what is happening in the jobs market you have to compare the overall supply of jobs with the demand. James Pethokoukis gives us the charts

If you want to blame Dubya, fine. Above is what you can blame him for. This chart measures the percentage of the labor force (persons available to take jobs) that is actually working. It rises steadily from Reagan to Bush 43 and steadily declines thereafter. The worst thing you can say about Obama's record is that he has utterly failed to stop the slide. That is also the best thing you can say about it. We're not back where we started when Obama took office; we're back where we started when Reagan took office!

It gets better. Here is a chart laying out civilian labor force participation against population growth.

This shows you what the business cycle used to look like: sharp downturns followed by robust recoveries. Lines zigzagging upward indicate job growth robust enough to supply jobs not just to people who lost them in the last recession but also to new workers entering the workforce. The Reagan-Bush41 recovery and the Clinton recovery look very healthy. The Bush43 recovery, by contrast, looks anemic; however, it was still a recovery.

You can hardly blame Obama for complaining about the cards he was dealt. The great recession was great because it was unprecedented. The drop in labor-force participation was dropped us back to levels not seen since the early 80's recession. What is almost as striking, however, is what happened next. The line doesn't resume its rise but flattens out. There is nothing like that anywhere else on the chart. The great American jobs engine is down in a hole and stuck in neutral.

That is Obama's jobs record. Maybe we are on course for a great surge in economic growth. There is no sign of that so far. One might wonder what Obama plans to do about all of this if he is reelected. If he has a clue, he has kept it a secret.

Is Obama Cool Or Just a Jerk?

In the comments of Ken's post below Bill Fleming [Bill got mad that added an extra M in the orignal post] and I are discussing Barack Obama's personality.  The debate seems to be whether Obama is an introvert full of self-confidence (the Flemming position, which he can correct if I have him wrong) or a loner with arrogance out of proportion with his accomplishments (my position). 

Granted, all presidents will have high self-regard, often falling into arrogance. Let's compare
Obama to someone to whom few will have a visceral reaction, George H.W. Bush.  Bush 41 started his own business (albeit with some help of family connections) and built a very successful engery company.  He went on to be a congressmen, the ambassador to the U.N., head of the Republican National Committee, envoy to China (essentially ambassador, but not holding that title) and head of the CIA.  All of this before he ran for president in 1980.  Now THAT is accomplishment to be proud of.

Obama was co-president of Harvard Law Review, but conspicuously  never published a signed piece in the Review, an omission I understand to be quite rare.  At the University of Chicago he was given a senior lecture position without any legal accomplishments to speak of.  While there he also never published a single law review piece and, according to Richard Epstein (admittedly, no fan of Obama) was conspicuous by his unwillingness to debate his views with other faculty members.  Obama was contracted to write a book on race and the law but was unable to write the book.  After getting two extensions (and two advances) Obama wrote Dreams of My Father rather than the book on the law.  Again, there is this remarkable fact that Obama seems incapable of writing about what he is supposed to be expert on.  And now we know, thanks to David Marinass, that large portions of Dreams of My Father were invented or highly exaggerated to the extent that we can call them untrue.  So we can say that Obama could not actually write his own autobiography. 

In the Illinois State Senate, as we know, Obama was "Senator Present" due to his unusually high number of "present" votes.  In the US Senate he authored no important pieces of legislation.  He chaired one sub-committee but failed to ever call a meeting.  Is it surprising the Senate staff members voted him the #2 "show horse" in the United States Senate (right in front of Joe Biden, btw)? 

Despite a career that suggests mediocrity, Obama believes, famously, that he knows more about policy than any of his policy directors, that he is a better speechwriter than his professional speechwriters, and he knows more about politics than his political director.  Just to draw an example, Obama apparently thinks he knows more about economics than, say, Larry Summers, Paul Volker and Christina Romer.  That, my friends, is not confidence.  That is arrogance bordering on pathological.  I will not rehearse (because I did it here) all the people who say that Obama really hates to lose, and what is more, he personally hates people who beat him.  He also has the reputation of taking it as a personal insult if someone disagrees with him and, again, he takes a personal disliking of anyone who has the temerity to actually disagree with The One.  That is not the sign of confidence.  If anything it is a sign of great insecurity. 

As I have said, if you like President Obama's policies and/or dislike Mitt Romney's none of this likely effects your vote.  But, as Bob Woodward is pointing out, this likely makes it hard to be a successful president. Here's one anecdote from Woodward

"There's this divided-man quality to President Obama always. Initially he meets with the congressional leaders, he says you know, 'We're going to be accommodating, we're going to listen, we're going to talk, we're going to compromise," Woodward said.

"But then they -- Republicans ask some questions and challenge him a little bit and he says, 'Look I won. I'm in charge here,' " Woodward continued. "And the Republicans feel totally isolated and ostracized. And this was the beginning of a war."

Obama lacks the bargaining skills necessary to craft legislation, and absent an overwhelming partisan majority for his side, he can't work to form a legislative majority.  One reason he cannot achieve this necessary task is that, as Woodward notes in this story, Obama has a visceral reaction to anyone who contradicts him.  I think this puts him in the arrogant loner camp, not the self-confident introvert.

Obama Eastwood’s Himself-Update

After spending some time reviewing clips from the first presidential debate here is my judgment. If you read the transcripts, Romney still wins by a comfortable margin. For whatever reason, I thought that Obama had narrowly won by that standard just after the debate was over. I was clearly wrong.

If you had listened to the debate without the video, you would likely have concluded that Romney won by a wider margin. I would note, however, that I have heard from a few Republicans who only listened that they thought Obama had won.

For those who both listened and watched, the general judgment has been that it was the most one-sided victory in the history of these things. I certainly agree that Romney was very strong and Obama very weak.

However, I still think the general reaction to the debate is out of proportion to what happened on the Denver stage. Romney was very strong, perhaps as strong as one can hope for in a presidential debate; but he wasn't quite the Hercules that many Republicans now seem to think he was. Obama was weak, but he wasn't nearly as bad as many on the Left seemed to think. In fact, he was about what I expected him to be, given the context. Obama has never been very good on his toes when he had neither a teleprompter nor an adoring crowd before him. If I am right that both sides overreacted, what is the explanation?

Dana Milbank at the WaPo has the best interpretation of what happened to President Obama:

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday's emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuel's departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who aren't likely to get in his face.

That is surely the story. Obama has been praised as a great communicator and he has presented himself as someone who could bring both sides together. In fact, he was only good at reading aloud and only looked good as a speaker when the crowd cheered his every word. When he has neither advantage, as in Denver, he is not impressive. Instead of exposing himself to challenging situations over the last four years, he has assiduously avoided them. He likes soft-serve interviews with movie stars and friendly talk show hosts, but has little time for press conferences formal or otherwise. Milbank says that the result of this is that "Obama's argument skills atrophied". It might be more accurate to say that they never had a chance to develop.

This is not merely a political defect; it is a functional defect in a President. "Shying away from mixing it up with members of Congress" has kept Obama from acting effectively as Chief Legislator. He is uncomfortable in a room where he has to argue with people who do not defer to his excellence. It also explains why he failed to do one thing that he genuinely thought he could do: bring the peoples of the world together and restore America's good name abroad. To do that, you have to sit down and reason with folks who do not automatically applaud your every flourish.

It is no surprise that Obama has exposed himself to unscripted press conferences less frequently than Bill Clinton. Clinton was a natural raconteur. That Obama has done so less frequently than Bush 41 or 43 is telling. Those two could barely construct an English sentence but they walked out their nonetheless. Obama stayed mostly in hiding.

Milbank nails the reason that the reaction to Obama's performance was so bad on both the left and the right. He calls the debate "Wednesday's emperor-has-no-clothes moment." He is not the only one to draw on that metaphor. For all of his adult life and especially over the last five years, armies of well-intentioned folks have been telling him that he is wonderful in lieu of actually requiring him to do anything even vaguely impressive. He won the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything at all for the cause of peace.

Wednesday was the moment that everyone suddenly noticed, many for the first time, that the emperor was not only naked but virtually invisible. The New Yorker cover gets it right. Not only the clothes but the emperor was missing. He is, as I have been arguing, the man who wasn't there.

I am guessing that the moment won't last. I am sure of this, however: if Obama is reelected, it will mean four more years of shielding himself and us from reality.

UPDATE

Brit Hume at Fox Sunday confirmed by view of the debates. 

What I would say about this is that this idea that Romney won the debate because Obama basically didn't show up, I don't buy that. The Barack Obama, I heard on that debate stage was the Barack Obama I have been listening to now for four years. He sounded very much like himself. I don't think he was terribly bad. I think he has a very weak case, and I think the circumstances in the country present the challenging candidate with all kinds of opportunities. Mitt Romney was on his game and took advantage of those opportunities.

OK, How About the Oblong Ball

Apparently my basketball reference was lost on Ken.  I was referring to the quote from Obama, who famously said, before his 2004 DNC speech I believe, "I'm Lebron baby.  I got game." 

Let's use a football example.  If we call last night's debate the third quarter, Romney clearly outscored Obama.  What we don't know yet is whether he scored enough to tie or even pull ahead of Obama.  We won't know that for a week, perhaps.  Once we know that we'll know what has to happen for each side in the fourth quarter.  I am still of an opinion that Obama will pull it out in the end.

Romney Wins Big

There are two ways to judge a debate between candidates for office and only one of them matters. I actually thought, contrary to almost all of the online commentary, that Obama did slightly better on points. He was utterly cool and smoothly clever in a lot of his answers. I thought he did a better job, logically speaking, of exposing Romney's inconsistencies and parrying the latter's thrusts. Unfortunately for Obama, this is the way that doesn't matter. Obama is running for President of the U.S., not the faculty senate.

The judgment that does matter is which candidate advanced his cause. Here the punditocracy on both sides of the aisle seems to be in accord. It was a very, very good night for Mitt and a very bad one for Barack. If Romney seemed a bit repetitive and over excited at times, he was always in control. More than that, he seemed passionate, forceful, and very well organized. He rebutted the President's key talking points again and again. He was constantly on the offensive and did a lot to expose the President's weaknesses. Here is William Galston at the Huffington Post:

Romney presented himself as a reasonable man -- neither an extremist nor an ideologue. He calmly rebutted familiar attacks on his proposals. He was clear and forceful, tough but respectful. He sounded knowledgeable. He conveyed an impression of competence and experience as a potential manager of the economy. He praised some aspects of the Obama administration's program, such as its Race to the Top education reform program. And when he insisted on the importance of working together across party lines, it sounded as though he meant it.

As Galston acknowledges, we won't know for a few days how this played in Ohio; but if Galston is right about how Romney appeared, he won a smashing victory. Above all, he looked like he wanted to be there.

The President did not look like he wanted to be there. He looked down a lot. But don't take it from me; take it from Andrew Sullivan:

10.31 pm. Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

If anything, the reviews of Obama's performance from the Left have been much more scathing than those from the Right. Bill Maher tweeted that "I can't believe that I am saying this but Obama does look like he needs a teleprompter."

Debates rarely matter, but this may be one of the rare cases. Most viewers, I suppose, see what they want to see. Some, however, sit down already leaning one way or the other and want to see whether they should or should not commit. In 1980, most viewers were leaning toward Reagan but some were at little worried that he was the wild-eyed cowboy that they were constantly warned about. All Reagan had to do was look sane and sober. He did and that may have closed the deal.

Most voters have a less well-defined impression of Romney at this point than they did of Reagan at his debate. Given the President's weakness on key issues like the economy and his persistent weakness among independent voters, it is that there is a significant portion of the electorate ready to swing in the direction of change. If so, this may have been the decisive point in the election.

CBS did a 500 person instant poll after the debate. Here are the results:

By a 2 to 1 margin, uncommitted voters crowned Mitt Romney the winner over President Obama in the first presidential debate in Debate, Colo., on Wednesday night, according to a 500-person instant poll taken by CBS News.

In the moments following the candidates' performances on the University of Denver stage, 46 percent of voters gave the economy-centric debate to Romney, 22 percent said they believed the president was the winner, and 32 percent called it a tie. More good news for the GOP nominee: 56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate. Eleven percent said their opinion of him dropped, and 32 percent cited no change in opinion.

CNN found even better numbers for Romney:

Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.

If those numbers are an accurate reflection of the viewers at large, this was probably the biggest single debate victory in the history of this kind of thing. Obama's critics have often argued that he is good at campaigning but clueless when it comes to governing. What if he isn't any good at anything?

The Short Take

Tonight Barack Obama was not Lebron, he was Lamar Odom.  Romney was Kevin Love. 

Benghazi Boondoggle

The Administration's handling of security at the Benghazi consulate and it's dissembling after the murder of Ambassador Stevens constitute two distinct scandals. That explains why the New York Times puts the link to the story in the smallest visible type way down its web page and the Washington Post home page has no link to the story at all. It is, as we Straussians like to say, conspicuous by its absence.

For the first story we can thank Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The NYT can thank him a lot, since they can put "GOP says" in their tiny headline. Might this story be worth putting a few reporters on it now?

Here is the gist, from the WaPo:

Despite two explosions and dozens of other security threats, U.S. officials in Washington turned down repeated pleas from American diplomats in Libya to increase security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador was killed, Republican leaders of a House committee said Tuesday.

That is a bombshell. If it's not true, then the Administration should promptly deny it. Surely they have to know by now. It has seemed clear from the beginning that the atrocity was a result of a serious security lapse. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi with the most minimal security on September Eleventh? It looks a lot worse after you learn the following:

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya."…

The letter listed 13 incidents, but Chaffetz said in an interview there were more than 50. Two of them involved explosive devices: a June 6 blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter. The explosion was described to the committee as "big enough for 40 men to go through"; and an April 6 incident where two Libyans who were fired by a security contactor threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence.

It gets better, as the Daily Beast reports:

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.

So the British ambassador was attacked in June by someone equipped with an RPG, someone who might not yet have seen The Innocence of Muslims. Britain and the Red Cross take the hint and pull out of Benghazi. Meanwhile we keep our consulate open in Benghazi and arrange for our ambassador to be there with virtually no protection on 9/11.

This is lethal incompetence. Equally incompetent if so far less lethal was the Administration's attempted cover up. They spent a week trying to convince everyone that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a spontaneous mob reaction to the infamous film clip. CNN reports that "White House chose to leave out key intelligence from the attack on Americans in Libya."

That's lying by omission but surely it's also stupid lying. How long did they think they could keep up the charade? Again from the Daily Beast:

In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that "after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them."

They threatened Stevens personally on Facebook! No way the Administration could have seen this coming.

Obama has personally promised to bring the perpetrators to justice. What is being done toward that end?

Three weeks after the attack that killed four Americans in this city, the investigation of its causes remains in its initial stages, with just a handful of suspects detained, the crime scenes minimally secured and Walid Faraj waiting for a phone call from someone, anyone, asking him what he saw on the night he was injured while protecting the U.S. diplomatic post here.

More than two weeks after the attack, investigators have yet to arrive at, let alone secure the crime scene. CNN managed to do what the FBI has not yet done, three days after the attack. One of their reporters found a journal written by Ambassador Stevens. I can only imagine what else might have been left at that site or who else might have pawed over it. I have a pretty good idea why the Administration is in no hurry to proceed.

The Man Who Isn’t There 5

I believe that I have established a pattern. In an earlier post I quoted from Helene Cooper's December 2011 piece in the New York Times. Here is from the same:

To many in Washington — including those, of course, who crave presidential face time — Mr. Obama's seeming aloofness is risky. He is the nation's politician in chief, and the presidency has always been first and foremost about politics.

"It's about building relationships," said Gerald Rafshoon, a television producer who was President Jimmy Carter's communications director. "Some people are saying he's a recluse. You don't want that reputation. He needs to show that he likes people." Mr. Rafshoon's old boss, an outsider to Washington when he became president, recently wrote in his book "White House Diary" that he did not socialize enough when he was the chief executive.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans say they rarely hear from the president, and members of his own party complain that Mr. Obama and his top aides are handicapping themselves by not reaching out enough.

"When you have relationships with individual members, you can call them up and ask a favor, and a lot of times, if it's not objectionable, you can get things done," said Representative Dennis A. Cardoza, Democrat of California.

It is a big part of the President's job to "build relationships" with members of both parties. That makes it possible for him to bring the two sides together and help to broker a deal. The President has never had any interest in building relationships.

When the Supercommittee was trying to broker a budget deal, they told the President to back off. Apparently, Harry Reid actually asked him to leave the room. Why? No one in the room knew him well enough to have any idea how to work with him.

It comes as no surprise that he is no more interested in getting to know the leaders of foreign nations. Helen Cooper weighs in again in the New York Times:

Mr. Obama's staunch defense of democracy protesters in Egypt last year soon drew him into an upheaval that would test his judgment, his nerve and his diplomatic skill. Even as the uprisings spread to Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, the president's sympathy for the protesters infuriated America's allies in the conservative and oil-rich Gulf states. In mid-March, the Saudis moved decisively to crush the democracy protests in Bahrain, sending a convoy of tanks and heavy artillery across the 16-mile King Fahd Causeway between the two countries.

That blunt show of force confronted Mr. Obama with the limits of his ability, or his willingness, to midwife democratic change. Despite a global outcry over the shooting and tear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Bahrain, the president largely turned a blind eye. His realism and reluctance to be drawn into foreign quagmires has held sway ever since, notably in Syria, where many critics continue to call for a more aggressive American response to the brutality of Bashar al-Assad's rule.

Mr. Obama's journey from Cairo to the Causeway took just 44 days. In part, it reflected the different circumstances in the countries where protests broke out, despite their common origins and slogans. But his handling of the uprisings also demonstrates the gap between the two poles of his political persona: his sense of himself as a historic bridge-builder who could redeem America's image abroad, and his more cautious adherence to long-term American interests in security and cheap oil.

To some, the stark difference between the outcomes in Cairo and Bahrain illustrates something else, too: his impatience with old-fashioned back-room diplomacy, and his corresponding failure to build close personal relationships with foreign leaders that can, especially in the Middle East, help the White House to influence decisions made abroad.

There is a lot in there to chew on. I am not inclined to blame the President for inconsistency in his foreign policy. There may be very good reasons treating Egypt differently from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, though one might wish for a clear explanation of those differences. Don't hold your breath.

The second from the last paragraph is especially chewy. The President clearly took office with a "sense of himself as a historic bridge-builder" who could repair America's relationship with the rest of the world and especially reconcile America with the Muslim world. This was sheer fantasy, as is now obvious. His "more cautious adherence to long-term American interests in security and cheap oil" represents not a separate pole of his personality, as Cooper puts it; instead it represents the collision of narcissism with reality.

That last paragraph is the money shot. The President is impatient with "old-fashioned back-room diplomacy". Why? Precisely because that requires building close relationships with foreign leaders. If the President is utterly incapable for building a relationship with the leaders of Congress, would you expect him to get to know the Saudi leaders or Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else that he ought to be dealing with?

No wonder that the President doesn't bother to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel when that nation is contemplating a military strike against Iran. He may know that Israel is an ally of the US, even if he isn't sure that Egypt is. Actually sitting down and talking to important people is just not something the President is interested in.

No wonder that the President gives a big speech at the UN summit but doesn't bother to meet with a single leader. He doesn't like meeting with anybody. He doesn't like meeting with his Presidential Daily Briefing committee. He apparently doesn't like actually talking to his own inner staff, preferring instead to make executive decisions by checking boxes on briefing papers, alone, late at night.

In the constitutional order, the President is expected to play a number of roles. One of those is Chief of State. Barack Obama is good at that one. He is also supposed to be Chief Legislator and Chief Diplomat. It is doubtful that anyone has ever occupied the office (if "occupied" is the applicable term) who was less temperamentally suited for those jobs.