Even among registered voters, Gallup has it as tied, 47-47.

I know it's just a poll. But it's so sweet.

Suitably Flip noted that Kos predicted his poll would be the worst poll news Obama saw all week.

Turns out it was only the worst poll news Obama saw for four hours.

Clear Credit: That whole observation is Flip's, not just the first part. I just rewrote it.

Update: I'm going to go murder a chicken, IYKWIMATYD. Experiment over.

UPI Poll: Likely voters give Romney a 3 point edge, 49-46.

Incidentally, notice how very few interviewees get kicked out by the likely voter screen here:

Results are based on nationwide telephone interviews with 1,478 registered voters, of which 1,244 identified themselves as likely voters, conducted Oct. 7-13.

If my math's right (and basic math is always something of a roller-coaster ride of adventure and intrigue with me), this likely voter screen says that 84.something% of registered voters are likely voters.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (351)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Via @johnekdahl, from the Huffington Post:

Pool: "Reporter: 'Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?' Obama: Silence. Kept walking."

Meanwhile a senior adviser to Romney says Romney will demand that Obama "man up" on Benghazi.

“I think Governor Romney, quite properly, will be asking questions, probing, and trying to ask the president to man up, accept his responsibility and explain to the American people the failure that resulted in four American deaths,” Williamson said.

He later added of Obama: “He can run but he’s not going to be able to hide. He’s going to have to man up and tell the American people what he knew, when he knew it and what he’s doing.”

Last time the Romney campaign floated what appears, in retrospect, to be disinformation, telling Obama to expect zingers. There were a few statements that do in fact qualify as "zingers" ("You don't just pick the winners and the losers -- you pick the losers"), but Romney's main thrust seemed to be substance and more substance.

So I don't know if this is more of that sort of thing. It could be that Romney isn't sure that Libya will come up in this debate -- perhaps Crowely will protect Obama, figuring it's bound to come up in the foreign policy debate -- and Romney wants this at least in Obama's head during the debate.

Wheels-within-wheels strategizing aside: It's probably served perfectly straight. Romney probably does plan to do something much like this, minus the blustery "man up" language. If Crowely, who's declared she's going to insert herself into this like crazy, allows him to get a word in edgewise.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

She failed. Of course she will be promoted.

Was she told she had to go out in lie to the American public to prove her chops at "diplomacy"?

The appearances were part of a gradual increase in the public profile of an administration insider, one eyed as a potential successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Today, RiceÂ’s profile has been raised, but hardly in the way that she or her White House supporters would have liked.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said that he would not "comment on future personnel decisions." The Post does not specify what question elicited this, but it's plain from context he was asked about the possibility she'd be appointed Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Rice says she was being briefed daily on the intelligence from Benghazi:

In an interview Monday with The Washington Post, Rice said she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials. She said there was no attempt to pick and choose among possible explanations for the attack.

If she was being briefed daily, then she knew what she was saying was false. Period.

Posted by: Ace at 08:15 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny stuff. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:25 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

50-46. Red states Romney 56-40. Blue states Obama only 52-44. Swing states Romney 50-47.

Last week, Romney +2, to which PPP tweeted:

Impt to note on our national poll- 75% of interviews conducted within 48 hrs of debate. Would encourage Dems to wait a week before PANIC

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) October 9, 2012

Well, more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:04 AM | Comments (457)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night from the relative safety of Lima, Peru Hillary Clinton announced that when it comes to the Benghazi disaster the buck stops with her (sort of).

Many have taken this as a sign Hilary is taking the fall for Obama and letting him off the hook. I have a a different theory....David Axlerod tried to throw her under the bus and she tossed it right back on him and Obama.

What Hillary has done is basically say, "the damn phone is ringing and President Creased Trousers isn't answering it so give it to me. She comes off as the grown up who said, look I'm in charge here and for good or ill that makes me responsible".

People tend to admire others who stand up and take the hits. Hillary looks like A-the loyal soldier and B-the only one who is going to stand up and say, "something awful happened on my watch and I'm going to look in the mirror to see who is in charge and not like some other people I could name, look around for scapegoats".

Hillary isn't taking the blame, she's taking the credit.

Now a lot of this is hypocritical because Hillary already tried casting the blame elsewhere but when all else fails, it's sometimes better to own it in the end.

How does this hurt Obama? Well tonight he will be standing next to Mitt Romney. Romney you might recall has made a rather big stink about Obama's failure to lead and his own stellar leadership record.

Here's how he might play this when Benghazi comes up (or he brings it up himself)..."It's all well and good that Secretary Clinton is taking responsibility but my leadership experience has taught me that only the person at the top of the organization is truly responsible. President Obama is at the top of the Executive Branch and he's ducking responsibility. I'd like to know if the President agrees with the Secretary and if he does, why hasn't he asked for her resignation? If he doesn't agree, why doesn't he say who is responsible? Most importantly, why hasn't he taken responsibility from Day 1. Harry Truman didn't say the buck stopped at the Department of State, it stopped at his desk in the Oval Office."

And then it will get ugly for Obama when Romney ads, "And who does the President blame for the failure of his policies to get this economy going? The Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe he blames you the voters for not paying enough in taxes. This country needs a President who accepts the responsibility that comes with the job and doesn't blame his subordinates."

Obama will have no answer to any of that. He also can't fire Hillary because that would cause problems with Team PUMA and his administration would be in disarray 3 weeks before the election

He can't suddenly say, "Oh no, it's me not Hillary who is responsible" because A-he doesn't believe that and B-It's too late. She beat him to the punch, he'll look like he's scrambling to catch up (which he would be).

Mitt's been running a campaign based on his leadership and Obama's unwillingness and inability to lead. The second most popular (maybe the most popular) Democrat in the country, who happens to be Obama's own Secretary of State, just co-signed that charge by stepping into the vacuum Obama's cowardice created.

What Hillary has done is hand Mitt a baseball bat, turned him in the direction of the giant Obama pinata on stage tonight and said, "Have at buddy. Maybe I'll see you in four years".

And what's the downside to Hillary? None. No one is really going to hold her responsible. The DMM (Democratic Machine Media) won't. The GOP certainly won't (update: as predicted) and Obama can't. She'll be hailed as "presidential", "the one official willing to stand up and take responsibility" and ironically enough, a "good soldier".

Don't forget, Hillary has seen a variation on this play work before. Remember Janet Reno taking the blame for Waco? Clinton looked weak and Reno owned him for the rest of his presidency.

Sure it's kabuki theater and there are still plenty of outstanding questions (who said "hey, let's blame a protest about some tape" among them) but the story will be the debate and if Romney can use it to put Obama back on his heels. By the time Hillary gets back in the country the story and the campaign will have moved on and the damage to Obama will be done.

Maybe Hillary didn't do all of this on purpose (but why wait until now to do this?) but intentionally or not, she's teed this up for Mitt. Will he hit it?

Posted by: DrewM at 05:02 AM | Comments (284)
Post contains 800 words, total size 5 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

New Q-poll confirms Romney's surge in Pennsylvania. Obama's lead is down to just four points, 50-46. But, alas for CAC, National Journal thinks it's unlikely that Team Romney will make a genuine play for Pennsylvania owing to the scattered and expensive media market. On the other hand, the GOP senate candidate Tom Smith is now polling just 3 points behind Sen. Casey.

Obama: "We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system." CBO: "Actually, the taxpayers will lose about $24 billion on the bailout, champ."

Ross Perot changes course, decides to endorse Romney after all.

Pizza Hut is backing off it's debate challenge/prank. It had offered a pie a week for 30 years or a check for $15,600 to anyone who asked the candidates "pepperoni or sausage" at tonight's debate. Now it will pick a random winner online.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (259)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

A Bad Day For Harold

Yesterday was the 946 year anniversary of the Normans' victory over King Harold at the battle of Hastings. And the fact that I used the word anniversary instead of say minds-day is just one of the many consequences of what could have been just a minor battle among some Northern European tribes:

It was one of the most consequential battles ever fought. It would set England on a course that eventually led to the establishment of the British Empire-and the foundation of the United States. The Norman Conquest left its stamp on English culture and politics in ways that are still with us; its impact on the development of the English language was especially strong. The Norman conquerors brought the French language with them, and while the English of the majority would ultimately triumph, the language that emerged from the Norman dominion would be profoundly changed. For two hundred years, English disappeared as a language of learned and powerful people. In the royal court and the palaces of the nobility, French was spoken. The Church continued to use Latin. English was the language in which rich people spoke to their servants. By the time the French conquerors began to assimilate to the language and culture of the people they had conquered, English had changed.

The Normans and the French gave us an utterly screwed spelling system but they also gave us a grammatically stripped-down language (easy to learn but hard too spel korekly) and essentially a doubled vocabulary.

An ear for the difference between Saxon and Norman-French based words remains important even in popular literature. In the Harry Potter books, the good characters often have trustworthy Saxon or Celtic surnames (Weasley, Dumbledore) while you can tell the bad guys by their evil French names like Malfoy (bad faith) and Voldemort (flight of death). "Muggles" is about as Anglo-Saxon as an invented word can get, and to English ears it sounds like a word that ought to exist even if you have never heard it before.

That said I still blame the French and society for my misfortunes. They made me what I am.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:13 PM | Comments (742)
Post contains 988 words, total size 12 kb.

Bill Maher was befuddled that Republicans would say this debate was close to a tie, with advantage to Ryan.

He figured it was just because we "lied." See, liberals admitted Obama won the first debate, but mendacious conservatives wouldn't admit that Biden kicked Ryan's ass in this one.

Let me offer a different theory: Liberals had to admit Romney trounced Obama because it was an absolute bloodbath. Meanwhile, conservatives say this debate was closer, advantage to Ryan, because that's what it was.

Which is what it was. Independents -- neutral-country judges in these verbal Olympics -- say Ryan beat Biden.

Was it a slaughter like the Romney beat-down? Nope. But a win's a win.

Incidentally, this polls was of adults. Not even registered voters, and definitely not likely voters. That accounts for Biden's alleged one-point curbstomping of Ryan.

So: That's why conservatives said a debate which Ryan won narrowly, was won narrowly by Ryan.

Because we actually see reality, and accurately describe it.

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

San Diego and the Broncos.

San Diego stinging a bit at helping get the Saints in the win column. Denver comes off a loss against New England.

8-8 is looking like a viable playoffs number this year. Whatever. Here, have some elbows.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:44 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.