Paul Krugman is "feeling so despondent."

Why? "Because of the way Obama negotiated" the fiscal cliff deal.

He gave every indication of being more or less desperate to cut a deal before the year ended....

He did? Funny, Rush Limbaugh kept saying Obama wanted to go over the cliff. It was his preference. The idea was to get rid of the hated Bush tax cuts and the cliff was there as a device to make it possible to blame the GOP. Back to Krugman:

The only thing that might save this situation is the fact that Obama has to be aware just how much is now riding on his willingness to finally stand up for his side; if he doesn’t, nobody will ever trust him again, and he will go down in history as the wimp who threw it all away.

The wimp?! Hey, remember when they were calling Romney a wimp?



That was back in July. Was Romney "just too insecure to be President"? Meade and I were just talking this morning about exactly that. There were 2 crucial points when Romney failed to stand his ground. He crumpled under intimidation. One was when the 47% video leaked out. Romney went beta, instead of doubling down, getting hardcore. The other was during the second debate, when he was going big on Benghazi, and Obama and Candy Crowley performed their check-the-transcript routine, and Romney deflated into oh, am I wrong?

So, anyway... is Obama just too insecure to be President?

"Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey."

And: "After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama."

Vote — for revenge... or love?

This clip neatly embodies a reason why I believe Romney will win. He feels like optimism, and Obama — who once owned the word "hope" — seems petulant, divisive, and ungrateful.

ADDED: On love and revenge, read Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech on Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize:

Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

AND: Here, for comparison, is Barack Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, over which we will puzzle forever. What was it for? He didn't mention revenge, but he did mention King and he did mention love:

The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their fundamental faith in human progress – that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.

Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.

It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."

I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.

It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

Massive support for Romney among lawprofs.

"Law Profs back President Obama over Mitt Romney 72% to 19%..."

19%! That's huge! I'm stunned!

Actually, it's not a very scientific poll, just a blog poll put up by lawprof Brian Leiter. Why would only lawprofs vote? I'm sure Leiter has non-lawprof readers. But what's most important is that Leiter's readers — lawprof or non-lawprof — probably skew left, even more than the usual group of lawprofs.

In which case: 19%! Wow! Huge!

We'll see what kind of "lawprof" result is achieved through a poll at lawprof Althouse's blog site:

Who's your choice for President?
	Gary Johnson
	Barack Obama
	Mitt Romney
	Jill Stein
pollcode.com free polls

Nate Silver says the polls say "Romney's Momentum Has Stopped."

Because, you must understand, "a body in motion tends to stay in motion. That is, it ought to imply that a candidate is gaining ground in the race — and, furthermore, that he is likely to continue to gain ground."

Romney peaked last Friday, and the "slightly favorable trend" is Obama's. Obama's chance of winning is, as of yesterday, 71%, up from 68.1% Tuesday.

By the way, there is a 10.5% chance that Wisconsin's electoral votes will be decisive, making us the third most-likely-to-be-decisive state (after Ohio and Virginia).

And The Washington Post just endorsed Obama:

[E]conomic head winds and an uncompromising opposition explain some of [Obama's] failures — and render that much more impressive the substantial accomplishments of Mr. Obama’s first term....

What kind of case has Mr. Romney made for himself?... The sad answer is there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes.

ADDED: There's no way to know what Obama really believes either. It's mentally unbalanced to allow such pedestrian realities to make you sad.

"The Emptiest Candidate in Presidential Election History: Mitt Romney truly believes in nothing."

They've got nothing on him, so they call him nothing. Ah, well, Obama's opponents call him Zero. that makes it Nothing vs. Zero.

***

Too much of nothing
Can turn a man into a liar
It can cause one man to sleep on nails
And another man to eat fire
Ev’rybody’s doin’ somethin’
I heard it in a dream
But when there’s too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean

***

"I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, ‘I had a dream! I had a dream!’ How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds?"

"Do you think the campaigns made an agreement that the candidates would have the exact same interaction at the beginning and end of each debate?"

"They always pat each other on the side of the arm while laughing, as if one of them had said something funny in the previous split-second."

"VIDEO: Romney Wins CBS Focus Group In Ohio..."

Drudge links us to this:



The silent sadness of the CBS newswoman's face at 0:29... hilarious. So funny that these newsfolk don't activate actorly skills to project the appearance of professionalism and neutrality.

Obama and Romney tell jokes on themselves...

... because — exactly why? — there's this Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner to which solemn obeisance must be paid. Hilarious, no? Who is better at being self-deprecating without actually hurting his cause... and don't you need to know in order to determine who would make the better President?

Obama up by 3 in the Rasmussen swing state tracking poll.

He was up by 2 yesterday, they were even on Monday, and Romney was up by 1 or 2 in the preceding 6 days.

In the regular tracking poll, it's 49% Romney, 48% Obama.

Daily Kos/SEIU poll: Obama 46%, Romney 50%.

"At a time when other polls are moving back in the president's direction, our own weekly poll by Public Policy Polling saw the opposite—a two-point Romney gain. Per day:"

Friday (38%) Obama 47, Romney 49
Saturday (39%) Obama 49, Romney 47
Sunday (24%) Obama 43, Romney 55

And in the swing states, it's Obama 47, Romney 50.

48%, 48%.

Rasmussen's presidential tracking poll, today. 

Has Obama healed his debate damage?

ADDED: I just noticed that Drudge is headlining: "GALLUP: 5-POINT ROMNEY BOUNCE."

AND: Note that both polls show the candidates tied, but Gallup had Obama 5 points ahead just before the debate. Also, Rasmussen's new poll is an average of polls taken on the last 3 days, that is, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Gallup Poll in question covers Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. So Gallup's poll corresponds to the poll Rasmussen reported yesterday, which had Romney 2 points ahead. So the basis for question — Has Obama healed his debate damage? — remains.

Romney 49%, Obama 47%.

The new Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll, an average of the last 3 days, 2 of which were post-debate.

Heading into Wednesday’s showdown, it was the president who enjoyed a two-point advantage. Today is the first time Romney has been ahead by even a single point since mid-September. See daily tracking history....

Both men have solidified their partisan base. Romney is supported by 89% of Republicans and Obama by 88% of Democrats. 

Romney has more support with Republicans than Obama has with Democrats.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, Romney leads by 16.

One might speculate that Obama has more of a problem reaching the middle group. His base will punish him. Romney has more ability to appeal to the middle, because core conservatives will stick with him, since they want Obama out so badly. If Romney can show — and he did at the debate — that he's not the heartless plutocrat in the Democrats' caricatures, people in the middle can feel free to vote for him (especially if they feel — as the debate made them feel — that Obama is worn out and doesn't really want to keep working at the job).

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 49%.

Rasmussen has a post-debate poll.

Who won?

Who won?
	Romney, clearly.
	Obama, clearly.
	Romney, by a bit.
	Obama, by a bit.
	It was a draw.
	It's not something that can be won or lost. What does it really matter? You like who you like...
pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: Oh, well, Obama is coming to Madison, into the arms of those who love him. There's the big outdoor rally tomorrow. (But look out, there's a 50% chance of rain... thunderstorms.)

Let's watch the debate!

7:38 Central Time: For some reason, I feel as though I'm not going to have anything to say. But I'm going to try to watch like a normal person, let it flow over me as if I didn't need to write about everything, and I'll see what happens. Please converse in the comments. And I'll do updates here if the spirit moves me.

7:43: Now, my son John is a fabulous live-blogger, and he's set up to go.

7:50: In the practice debates, Obama had John Kerry pretending to be Mitt Romney, and Romney had Rob Portman pretending to be Barack Obama. I've got to think Romney had the better practice partner. Why would Kerry be any good at that?

8:05: The candidates come out and shake hands. Meade: "Romney's taller." Me: "Romney has a bigger head."

8:06: Obama appropriately makes a statement about his wife. It's their 20th anniversary.

8:08: Romney says: "I'm sure this is the most romantic place you can imagine: here with me."

8:10: In the opening speeches, Romney had a great line about Obama thinking "trickle-down government" would work. "I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again." Meade says Romney won the opening statements: "Obama talked about himself and his job. Romney talked about us and our jobs."

8:13: Obama is talking up tax cuts for the rich!

8:23: "Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything," says Obama.

8:26: Romney's going on about lowering taxes, and Obama looks irritated.

8:29: Jim Lehrer is getting the vapors. He seems very old, weak, and small. Romney seems to have a plan to dominate him.

8:41: Obama has a plan to flash his winning smile, but he just flashed it when Romney brought up Solyndra and said "You pick the losers."

8:43: Lehrer only interrupts Romney (it seems to me). "Let's go," he mutters gruffly.

8:53: How long is this debate? Is this 2 hours? Is anyone still watching?

8:55: Lehrer interrupts Obama. He's struggling to get some control. He seems desperate.

9:16: They're not really attacking each other. Just rolling out policies, pretty wonkily, and distinguishing theirs from the other guy's.

9:17: Do they differ on "how they view the role of the federal government?" Lehrer asks with dismaying generality.

9:19: Obama invokes Lincoln. Lincoln thought the government should do some things, and Obama tries to be like Lincoln.

9:20: Romney loves great schools and great teachers. But the question is what's the role of the federal government. "We're all children of the same God." We have the "right to pursue our own dreams" as "free people."

9:36: Obama's closing statement sounds like platitudes. I'm surprised he has nothing vivid to say. Romney goes second.

9:39: Lots of hanging out on stage... together. Could it be that they like each other?

10:29: Everyone seems to be saying that Obama lost by a lot. I blame John Kerry. I'll bet he was a terrible practice partner.

Swing state tracking poll: Obama 48%, Romney 44%.

Rasmussen says. The regular tracking poll has Obama at 48% and Romney at 46%.

Obama 48%, Romney 46%.

Rasmussen tracking poll. With "leaners": Obama 49%, Romney 47%.

Swing state tracking poll: Obama 47%, Romney 45%.

Obama 46%, Romney 46%.

In the Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll. If you push undecideds and get an answer — that is, you include "leaners" — the Obama number stays the same, and Romney goes up to 48%.

It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.

I won't even lean. Go ahead push me. I won't turn into a "leaner" that can be included on one side or the other. I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.