Bill Clinton: Stop Attacking Romney's "Sterling Business Career." As a Matter of Fact, Stop Attacking His Governorship, Too.
Steny Hoyer Attempts Walking It Back

—Ace

...and lay out your actual plans for a second term, apart from the Big Do-Over on Health Care.

Drew covered this this morning. Clinton vigorously defended Romney's business reputation:

So I don�t think that we ought to get in the position where we say this is bad work, this is good work. I think, however, the real issue ought to be what has Governor Romney advocated in the campaign that he will do as president? What has President Obama done and what does he propose to do? How do these things stack up against each other, that�s the most relevant thing. There�s no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office, and you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.

Sterling business career? Good Lord, that is going quite a bit further than honesty dictates. That's almost being vindictively honest, against Obama's interests.

And since then, via Andy aka @TheH2, Steny Hoyer -- the Number Two Democrat in the House -- has tried to walk-back Clinton's remark.

Let me explain. I think Hoyer's statement is being misinterpreted on the right, and his intent misinterpreted.

Hoyer claims he agrees with Clinton -- then changes what Clinton said, in order to claim that while private equity as an industry shouldn't be criticized, "bad practices" -- such as Obama is claiming of Bain -- should be.

See, here's what Hoyer said:

I think President Clinton is correct. Private equity is a very important aspect of growing our economy. Obviously there's good practices in private equity; there are bad practices. You criticize bad practices but not the whole enterprise itself.

But that is most emphatically not what Clinton said. Clinton said that Romney's career at Bain was "sterling." He did not just say that private equity, in general, is an important industry.

Clinton specifically called out Romney's specific career as "sterling."

They did this with Cory Booker too -- they are fighting to walk-back these statements into something that permits President F**kup to continue claiming that Bain is a Vampire Capitalist outfit.

"Sterling" has a meaning. Hoyer ought to look it up. Via m-w.com:

conforming to the highest standard

[examples of usage]: sterling character, a sterling record of achievement

And sterling now has that metaphorical meaning because "sterling" in coin production meant "a very high proportion of precious silver to filler metal" -- "sterling" was a standard of purity and value, 925 parts silver to only 75 parts copper (92.5% of the good stuff to 7.5% filler).

Sovereigns typically debased their coinage with much lower percentages of silver (or gold, or whatever the valuable metal was). Sterling thus came to mean "of the highest standard."

So no, Steny, Clinton did not merely say that some people in private equity are doing good things, but that the "bad practices" at Bain should be criticized.

Double Post Explanation: Originally I was just going to put up Steny Hoyer's remarks, "agreeing" with Clinton.

But as I listened to the quote and read it, I realized he wasn't agreeing at all. He was walking it back -- or trying to. You can't really walk back a comment someone else made.

So, I figured I would just start over, and then get to Steny's walk-back.

He called Romney's career there "of the highest standard of excellence" -- 92.5% pure.

DJIA Falls 250 Points on Jobs News, General Malaise

—Ace

Key quote:

"It's painfully obvious the economic recovery in the U.S. isn't just slowing down, it's pulling up the emergency brake," said Todd Schoenberger, managing principal The BlackBay Group.

Some of their hopes pinned on the Fed -- they hope there's talk of QE3. If the Fed talks up Q3, then, they say, maybe this sell-off will be brief.

But others think this situation, while bad, isn't so bad to spur the Fed into a third round of "quantitative easing," or printing money.

The ISM manufacturing index has fallen. It is still above 50, so it indicates expansion in that sector, but barely, and is consistent with a slowdown.

Judge Revokes George Zimmerman's Bail; Gives Him 48 Hours To Surrender Himself; Says Zimmerman Failed To Disclose Website's Defense Fund In Financial Statement
Update: "Coded" Conversations Recorded on Prison Phones

—Ace

Zimmerman apparently said his family had little to no resources.

The prosecutor has asked the judge to revoke parole over the non-disclosure of the website's $200,000. The judge agreed.

Two points though:

This is a sandbag move by the prosecutor because they knew about the website. How could they not? The man they think is a 2nd degree murderer was soliciting donations before they arrested him.

Further, this is charity, and cannot be relied upon as income.

Zimmerman should have mentioned this -- but the prosecutor, who knew all about it, should have asked about it.

To say nothing at the bail hearing and then raise this issue later... seems like a deliberate sandbag move for a prosecutor who is over-invested in the proposition that George Zimmerman should be in jail.

Breaking on Fox News.

Argument: A woman on Fox is saying this should not be counted as Zimmerman's funds for bail, as it has a specific purpose: Paying attorneys to defend him.

More: Bob Owens has a detailed report.

[Zimmerman] and his wife lied about the money they had at their disposal prior to the bond hearing. Furthermore, they had their poorly coded conversation about the money recorded via the prison phone system.

Owens thinks Zimmerman has demolished his credibility for almost no reason at all.

Flashback, 2010: Biden Predicts Economy Will Soon Be Producing Upwards of 500,000 Jobs Per Month

—Ace

Nailed it.

Meanwhile, this seems to be a Thing, though I don't know why. It's just a joke, isn't it?

But Obama says he wants people to go out and buy a "thingamajig."

Holder's DoJ Demands Florida Stop Purging Non-Citizens From The Voter Lists

—Ace

Much like illegal immigration -- the law is kept on the books, as a nod to public opinion, but states will be sued if they actually enforce the law.

So sure, it's a law that only citizens can vote.

But Florida is not allowed to enforce that.

Enforcing the law is, itself, in violation of federal law.

Now the explanation for this is that states are required by the National Voter Registration Act to submit plans to purge names from the voter list to the DoJ, for DoJ review, ninety days before implementing it.

The trouble is-- the state says it did just that. And the DoJ stonewalled.

[T]hey indicated they might fight DOJ over its interpretation of federal law and expressed frustration that President Barack Obama�s administration has stonewalled the state�s noncitizen voter hunt for nine months.

Nine months is in excess of 90 days. The DoJ cannot be permitted to block a lawful purge of illegal voters just by sitting on the plan for nine months.

Elizabeth Warren: My Grandfather So Objected To My Mothers's Cherokee Heritage (1/16th, According to "Lore" and Nothing Else) That My Parents Eloped... To A Wedding Conducted by a Pastor 14 Miles From Their Residences

—Ace

Correction: Via Hot Air, I see I misread Breitbart's report -- they don't know yet if it was a church wedding. It was conducted by a pastor, not a justice of the peace or some Vegas Elvis. Right now they're checking on the church-wedding thing.

...

They "eloped"?

Is this more lore?

The definition of elope, according to Merriam Webster, www.m-w.com, is:

": to run away secretly with the intention of getting married usually without parental consent"

Breitbart has documents which it thinks is the certificate of marriage and marriage license.

They "ran away" to a church in the county seat 14 miles from their homes?

That doesn't sound, circumstantially, like an elopement.

That just sounds like a marriage.

Maybe Breitbart should see if they can get some more marriage certificates from this period, and from this area. If a lot of people in Elizabeth Warren's mother's town were getting married at this same church, it sort of suggests they just got married, and didn't "elope."

Democratic Stenographer And Washington Post Blogger Greg Sargent Gets Pissy Over Jobs Post
Plus: New Romney Ad

—DrewM.

(Bumped since we had a little timing issue earlier)

Over at Greg "He'll Print Anything Media Matters Sends Him" Sargent's blog once of his co-bloggers wrote a post entitled "Don�t give in to the jobs report blues". I retweeted his link to it with the snark, "Libs: Let a smile be your umbrella".

Genius Greg then responded

It's customary to conceal your excitement about bad news for the country and continued economic misery for fellow Americans

So now pointing out that liberals are lamely trying to cheer themselves up in the face of the disaster they have created is being excited about that disaster? Ok Greg. Maybe Media Matters can get him some better talking points soon.

I think anyone who looked at today's news and wrote that maybe, just maybe there's a possible "silver lining" and this month is just "a statistical anomaly" deserves to be mocked.

Also, unlike Greg's co-blogger, I don't think the big take away items from today's jobs report is "at least there�s nothing here to change the entire trajectory of the campaign." against Obama. Well thank God for that, right?

BTW- If you don't think a worsening economy isn't going to change the "trajectory of the campaign", you either a fool or a hopeless liberal. Wait, those are often the same thing. Never mind.

Normally I wouldn't bother posting about a Twitter pissing match but I think it shows you how desperate the Democrats are. They can't talk about their policies so they'll just ignore the damage they've created.

But hey, Obama is losing Bill Clinton but he'll always have Greg Sargent.

Related enough, Team Mitt has a new add out that just happened to be released on the day the jobs report came out. Bottom line message: It's not morning in America but I'll turn the lights on if you let me.

Putting my marker down: Romney wins big [Fritzworth]

—Open Blogger

Not 1984 big, but so decisively as to preempt any Dem claims of voter irregularities and to forestall any Dem voter irregularities themselves. ("If it's not close, they can't cheat." -- Hugh Hewett)

And when analysts look back at the 'turning point' of the 2012 election, they'll point to this week as the inflection point of the campaign, and in particular to three key points:

1) It's now apparent that the Emperor's campaign has no clothes. In spite of the best "wind beneath his wings" efforts of the mainstream media (haircuts? dressage?), every Obama campaign attack on Romney so far has blown up in their faces, either undercut by other Dems (gotta love Bill's statements last night -- remember, revenge is a dish best served cold and with plausible deniability) -- or by bringing to light background information about Obama that the MSM has carefully overlooked for six years.

2) Romney and his campaign staff are clearly moving themselves "inside the loop" in their campaign against Obama. They're raising more money, they're responding to the news cycle better, and they're aggressive about getting in his face. As others have noted, Obama has never faced a tough campaign before and for the first time he has a highly public, highly visible record to defend. I've been waiting 30 years for a bare-knuckled Republican Presidential candidate; who would have thought it would be Mitt Romney? Not me, but I couldn't be happier.

3) It really is hard to overstate just how bad the economic news today was for Obama. It's not just the slight tick upward in the artificially low unemployment rate; it's not just the horrendous May jobs numbers (69,000 actual vs. 150,000+ expected). It's the April jobs numbers being revised down from 114,000 to 77,000, with a chance that the May jobs numbers will be revised downward a month from now. Basically, the 'soft recovery' is sliding down a steep slope, and I'll give even odds that we see at least one month this year with negative job growth.

Obama Unveils Secret New Plan to Turn The Country's Fortunes Around

—Andy

Oh, wait, did I say the country's fortunes? Sorry, I meant his electoral hopes. Priorities, you know:

President Obama will jump-start what looks to be a major June fundraising push with six money events today in Minneapolis and Chicago � the most fundraisers he�s held in a single day since launching his bid for a second term.

Six fundraisers? How on earth will he find time to slip in a round of golf?

Image by Slublog. (There are more good ones at the link. He was on a roll last night)

Mitt Romney's Business Record Is "Sterling" Says Noted Rightwing Hack....Bill Clinton

—DrewM.

At least Cory Booker will have company under the bus.

�I don�t think we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work; this is good work,� Clinton said, adding: �There�s no question that, in terms of getting up, going to the office, and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who�s been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.�

Clinton urged the Obama campaign to instead focus on contrasting its vision for the country with Romney�s. His comments came at the tail end of a day in which another Obama surrogate, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), called Bain a �a perfectly fine company.�

Ooof.

Just between us, don't tell anyone because it's premature but another month or two of economic news like we got today and Democrats hitting Obama for his Romney attacks and Mitt might win this thing...BIG. But you didn't hear that from me.

"This Obama Guy Over Here, He's An Amateur"

BREAKING: Recovery Summer Part III Off To A Rocky Start. Unemployment Inches Up, Job Creation Unexpectedly Lower Than Expected

—DrewM.

8.2 unemployment rate (wink, wink) only 69.000 jobs created in May.

Analysts were "expecting" a job creation number of around 150,000 (which would have been pathetic itself). Missed it by thaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt much.

Expect more to come shortly.

April's job number was revised down to 77,000. Unexpectedly.

More "unexpected" revisions:

BLS: employment for March was revised from +154,000 to +143,000, and the change for April was revised from +115,000 to +77,000.

Labor force participation was up by 642,000.

Construction jobs down 28,000.

Not even Obama's favorite "independent economist" Mark Zandi can spin this disaster. "There's nowhere to hide on this one".

More numbers will be teased out but the bottom line is....disaster. Disaster for the economy and Obama.

Keep this in mind when you hear idiots chanting "Four more years!" at Obama rallies. Who the hell wants four more years of this?

Five More Months!

Top Headline Comments 6-1-12

—Gabriel Malor

June? Huh. June.

Two videos this morning.

First up, Orrin Hatch opponent Dan Liljenquist says he supports tax increases (he calls them "revenue enhancements") if necessary to cut the deficit and as part of a deal to cut entitlement spending. Hatch says no to tax hikes, even as part of a deal.

Second, from the folks over at Breitbart, last night President Clinton shot down President Obama's attacks on Romney's business record, explaining both that Bain's activities were both good and necessary, and saying that Romney had a "sterling business career."

Have a great weekend.

Insiders: Barack Obama Confides To High-Dollar Donors That He's Preparing For Supreme Court Overruling ObamaCare

—Ace

Publicly, he says he is confident they'll uphold it.

Privately, he says he might have to "revisit" it.

I'm not sure this is a big thing. People generally look for a Plan B, even while declaring that Plan A will work.

But there is the chance that this is more than simply planning for the worst.

Perhaps word has leaked to Obama -- Elena Kagan would give them a heads up, right? -- and that Obama's words aren't just prudent planning, but actually tipping us off about the decision already made. They already did a test vote, and are now, I think, writing opinions.

Thanks to JohnE.

Overnight Open Thread (5-31-2012)

—Maetenloch

Where The Federal Money Goes - Then and Now

The Left loves to carry on about how defense spending is the reason why the Federal budget has such a huge deficit, but as you can see here that just isn't the case.

As a percent of the overall budget spending on defense - a core function of the federal government mind you - is at it's lowest level in over 50 years. The real issue is that medical and safety net spending has grown from a paltry 7% of the budget during the Kennedy Administration to nearly 36% today. And note that this is before ObamaCare spending starts kicking in.

Extrapolating a few years ahead you can see that the US government is on track to become a giant insurance company that happens to have a military and some government services as a sideline.

Live Wisconsin Recall Debate, Streaming, Now

—Ace

Walker v. Barret, on the internet.

Robert Costa at NRO predicted (via this Hot Air post that Barrett would shift the debate from collective bargaining reforms to Walker's status as a rock star of the right. We'll see if that works.

And Bill Clinton will be campaigning for Barrett this weekend. Allah takes this to mean Democrats think they're close, or else, the thought goes, Clinton wouldn't risk his reputation on a likely failure.

I dunno. Seems like if you need a high-profile Democrat to risk some capital on a likely loss, you'd go to the guy whose elective career is over.

Star Khan Reince Priebus: "Lights Out For Obama" if Walker Prevails in Wisconsin: A lot of the marbles are riding on this one.

Final? Barrett(D) Internal for Wisconsin Recall:

—CAC

He still loses, 48-50. No change from the last internal "release".
His supporters try to push the other "findings" which show strong support for Barrett amongst those familiar with John Doe...but Barrett has been hammering and yammering on John Doe since...before the last poll. No change.

Public nonpartisan polling has continued to show Walker leading. The only polling impacting the perception of the race, convienently, are Barrett's and the Democratic push polls from DGA and Lake. Nate Silver, hardly a Walker enthusiast, clears the air on the left's bizarre attack on every public poll yet boast and defense of their clearly biased internals:

Dem poll shows WI-recall tied. Nonpartisan poll has Walker up 7. Relevant fact: partisan polls have a 6-point bias on average.
Yes, there's some residual chance that Barrett pulls off the upset. But don't see any reason to distrust the nonpartisan polling in WI.

Nonpartisan poll after poll after poll has given Walker at least a 5 point lead on the LV screen (his highest is +12 with We Ask America, which also had the largest sample size and smallest margin of error). Sure, Barrett's numbers could be right.
Walker could win it in a squeaker instead of the current mid-single digits. Or of course the unthinkable, but if Republicans turn their GOTV efforts up to 11 that shouldn't happen.

Final projection will be Sunday/Monday, depending on any more public polls released by the end of the weekend. Coverage for the recall results will begin one hour before the polls close in Wisconsin on Tuesday and will carry through until all results are in, sometime early Wednesday.

UPDATED TOTALS ON ABSENTEE BALLOTS (Mailed AND in-person early voting totals): 160,800.
Early in-person voting ends tomorrow, 5pm.
The alleged 30,000 a day for 13 days has failed to materialize, for what it's worth.

Total in 2010: 230,000
Total in 2008 (Democrats are aiming for high turnout): 633,000

RECAPS ON CITY BY CITY ABSENTEES
MADISON (thru Thu) 15,000 returned/in person
WAUKESHA (CITY) 3100 returned/in person
BROOKFIELD(CITY) 2550 returned/in person (3500 req so far)
MILWAUKEE (OLD NUMBERS)- 15000(through monday) returned/in person
GREEN BAY (CITY) 3700 issued 1000 more ordered (so far)

FINAL Debate link here.

Michael Bloomberg: Why Yes, I'm Banning The Sale of Soda In Any Container 16 Ounces or Larger

—Ace

What else could he do? After all, he is a parent with eight million children.

Eight million children incapable of deciding what they'll eat or drink.

So of course he must tell them what to eat and drink. With a Lesson called "The Law."

�Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, �Oh, this is terrible,� � Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall�s sprawling Governor�s Room.

�New York City is not about wringing your hands; it�s about doing something,� he said. �I think that�s what the public wants the mayor to do.�

The New York Times thinks It's About Time (TM).

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

You know, we shouldn't call them "liberal" any longer. Liberal has a meaning.

They were once liberal. Now they are simply authoritarian socialists.

Sarah Palin Was Right: Tough "Vetting" In Primary Has Produced Tougher Candidate

—Ace

I actually didn't disagree with her at the time, though I did worry that too much "vetting" could result -- possibly -- in a fractured party and a badly damaged candidate. As I supported vetting the hell out of Romney when I was on Team Perry, I couldn't really disagree that her assumed favorite, Newt Gingrich, should get his own "vetting" in.

But that reservation turns out to have been unnecessary. Romney does seem to be a stronger candidate for the "vetting."

Dick Morris observed last night, on O'Reilly, that Obama has already moved off its Bain attack to start going after Romney's record as governor.

Nothing wrong with the latter -- it's the former that's the problem. If Obama's moving off Bain, it means the issue has no traction.

Want to see what happens when an issue has traction? Check out Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Why didn't the Bain attacks go anywhere? I think it's pretty simple: Because Newt Gingrich raised the issue, vigorously (assist to Rick Perry), and the facts about Bain have already all come out. The limited "bad" (not really bad, but you could cast it that way) as well as the much more extensive good.

Stupid attack lines work best in a vacuum of ignorance. Could Lynching Fever have taken hold in the George Zimmerman case if all information about the incident were known from the start?

No. It took off because interested racial partisans and members of the Frankfurt School Left put out some very limited, selectively-chosen, and outright false information to the public. Given the vacuum of ignorance, "White man guns down black toddler holding Skittles and Iced tea" is enough to get the News Panic going.

"Hispanic man on neighborhood watch in area with lots of burglaries suspects unknown person may be on drugs or casing places, and is then beaten bloody by suspected burglar, and then shoots 6'+ man assaulting him" is a fuller presentation of the situation, and one that doesn't gain much News Panic traction.

Ignorance is the ally of deceit.

Now, we did have something of a News Panic with respect to Bain (one which I must confessed I joined in on). Ignorance was the ally of deceit, and deceits were spread, and I joined in in propagating them.

But Bain is no longer a blank slate upon which we can project our fears, as Barack Obama might say. The slate is full of information, most of it quite positive.

Romney was damaged some by the Bain attack, but he really can't be re-damaged from it. Whose minds would change upon hearing the full history of Bain, when the initial News Panic presented a much more ignorant and scary view?

Anyone susceptible to this already doesn't like Romney. There won't be any new converts, now that the attack is far weaker.

In fact, ignorance will tend to be dispelled along the way, and Romney can expect some amount of reversing of opinion on Big Bad Bain.

It gets better for Romney; it can not, it seems, get better for Obama.

For the Love of Vampire Capitalism, we have not just Cory Booker telling people Bain is a company with a good reputation, but now Obama Prototype/Dry-Run Devall Patrick praising the company. (He also confesses Massachusetts' unemployment number was "in the fours" under Romney -- he guesses 4.3%, which is very low. I think the figure is 4.7%, which is also quite low-- full employment.)

But Team Obama thought, Dick Morris believes, that Romney had a big target called "Bain" on his back, and all they needed to do was utter the word and it would be a story.

But it's not. They miscalculated. They seem to have forgotten a story can only be a Great Big Story when there are still mysteries and unanswered questions and obvious lies. Again, see Professor Pappoose about that.

When the story has already been substantially fleshed out, mostly in the target's favor, it's really not a big story anymore.

One area where Romney needs improvement is debating-- specifically, keeping his cool when attacked and jibed. Some of his worst moments came when he was challenged -- be became peevish (to use a kind word) and sort of just looked like a dick.

That's going to happen more, and Obama is of course plotting things he can say to provoke this reaction.

And while Romney is good, generally, in debate, he's not great. Smooth, competent-sounding, factual, reasonable-sounding, but not really engaged in the moment and able to quickly react to an opponent's statement and turn it on him (like Gingrich can).

Now, that's a skill Romney is simply not going to pick up -- there is a limit to the extent skills you don't have can be gained -- but he absolutely must get used to dickheads challenging him and saying dickhead things to him in public fora. I cannot stress enough this is going to happen, and it's a real weakness.

Further, it's a weakness he never really got too much practice in covering in the debates, because he did get a lot of free passes in those -- the "Romney Rivals" were always far more intent on challenging the other Romney Rivals than Romney himself.

If I were him, I'd contact three men-- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry -- and have the three of them gang-up on him and be the douchiest douches they can manage, to get Romney prepared for Obama.

And of course the three members of Obama's Palace Guard that will serve as immoderators.

As these three guys managed to raise Romney's hackles in the past, he should recruit them to de-hackle himself.

I know they often use campaign staffers as sparring partners, but this is a mistake. An employee can only challenge his boss so much, even if he's supposed to be challenging him. There's a natural reluctance there. (Rick Perry practiced with staffers and look how that turned out.)

Romney should reach out to his most vigorous harassers and ask them to perform that duty a few more times, until he doesn't have to fake being amused by Bain and Illegal Immigrant Gardner attacks any longer, but actually is amused by them, and doesn't have to fake the Reagan There You Go Again eye roll, but actually feels it.

I'd divide it like this:

Santorum: economic stuff/wealth stuff/blue-collar stuff/hypocrisy and flip flops on social issues

Gingrich: Bain/subtance-based social issue attacks from the left (Gingrich can argue anything so he's best for this)/hypocrisy/cheap debate tactics

Perry: Hypocrisy and cheap attacks like Seamus, "Horse Ballet," Illegal immigrant hypocrisy, racism against Hispanics, and an unclear view of foreign policy, general unreadiness to lead the armed forces

Something tells me that Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich might even enjoy providing this service. I think they might be rather good at telling Romney what kind of an asshole they think he is.

Edwards Walks; Not Guilty On One Charge, Mistrial (Hung Jury) on All Others

—Ace

Last Update: Scumbaggery wins. It often does. Until it doesn't.

Unresolved: Will Edwards now start dating the alternate juror he flirted with?

Gif thanks to "Rex Harrison's Hat."

Update II: I was going to leave this as the top thread until the verdict was read, but now it seems like it will be a long time before that happens.

I'm going back to blogging, and will bump this if/when a verdict is read.

...

Update: Well, rumors of a verdict were greatly overstated.

There are six counts against Edwards, and they're hung on five. They have a verdict on one (or possibly "at least one").

It looks like that Allen charge will be read after all, and the jury will have to go back to chambers and argue this out.

Though I assume the Democrats on the jury will stay firm.

They have a verdict on count 3 -- illegal contributions from Bunny Mellon in excess of $2300 (the cap). But we don't know what that verdict is.

Seems he obviously did that, no?

...

It had previously been speculated (FoxNews tells me) that this would result in a hung jury, and that an Allen Charge -- an admonition by the judge to do their duty and reach a verdict, given all the expense of the case -- would need to be read.

But they have a verdict, or, rather, several verdicts, I guess, as there are multiple charges against Edwards, involving illegal diversion of campaign money for improper purposes and conspiracy to do same.

What the Jury Asked To See: A handwritten note from Bunny Mellon stating she wanted to handle her, um, donations without government knowledge, and a check written with the notation "To save America."

Reason: I think it's the defense's argument that these moneys were just personal gifts, not campaign donations.

The check noted "To save America" indicates the moneys had a political purpose, and thus were campaign contributions, which should have been reported.

However, don't read too much into that. In the OJ case, the jurors asked to hear the testimony of the limo driver who waited for like an hour for OJ (while he was cleaning up after committing murder). This was damning evidence -- demonstrating a lack of alibi, and whereabouts unknown during/shortly after the murders.

But the jury only asked to hear that again so they could invent arguments for themselves as to why it proved nothing.

For Team Obama, Now Is Not The Time To Panic.
Tomorrow Is the Time To Panic.

—Ace

Another jobs figure is being released. Analysts guess it will be in the 133,000 to 150,000 jobs gained range, which, um, one dummy calls some kind of major improvement over last month's 115,000.

These numbers are below the replacement rate, folks. More people enter the work force (or used to, anyway) in a month than this.

There may be some expectations-gaming here, as Ed highlights one analyst saying... brace for something horrid, like 54,000.

And it gets worse.

�Nonfarm payroll has been decelerating since the beginning of 2012,� William told CNBC.com. �The probability of an acceleration of that down move is high over the next two quarters.�

The data lost positive momentum after failing to hold above the 2011 high of 251,000, and has also remained beneath a multiyear ceiling of around 340,000. During January 2012 �the loss of upside momentum triggered a DeMark exhaustion signal,� he said.

An exhaustion signal usually indicates a reversal in the trend. The DeMark Indicators are a collection of sophisticated market-timing tools created by Tom DeMark over the course of nearly 40 years in the financial industry.

�The key level that everyone in the market should be focusing on [for nonfarm payrolls] is 54,000,� William added. �I think that over the multimonth period the probability favors that we test this area and maybe move into negative territory if it is confirmed.�

The funny thing is that the media is currently saying that analysts expect 133,000 or 150,000 jobs. But if the numbers fall short of that, they'll suddenly start talking about "exceeding the 54,000 jobs predicted some."

The next two months are really Obama's last gasp. If this guy is anywhere near right, and we're entering a very very low period (after the previous period merely being very low), the election is all but over.

If it goes negative -- forget it. Forget it. Forget it.

It's done.

@rdbrewer4 linked this Barrone piece in the sidebar, asking, straight-up, if the Obama campaign guys are "kidding themselves" if they think their small-ball, client-service, silly-negative-hit campaign is going to win it for them, given that the economy is in the crapper and has been all of Obama's term.

This is what I never understood about all this "Obama is the favorite" chatter. I do not rule out the chance that Obama could win. People have won elections under bad economic conditions (FDR was reelected three times, while presiding over a depression many feel he extended and deepened).

But it's astonishing to me that anyone could imagine that someone could be favored under such circumstances -- or, even more preposterously, that Obama had the election virtually locked-up.

What could this possibly be based upon? The strong emotional bond the liberal media and DC have with Obama? Do they really imagine that the millions of lightly-partisan, results-oriented, apolitical voters out there love Obama just for being Obama, as they do?

Wouldn't it be more likely that such voters are more interested in actual facts on the ground, tangible improvements in their lives, than partisan "triumphs" like same-sex marriage and all the myriad Historical Firsts Obama lays claim to?

Do they really believe people give a shit about this?

Let me put it another way: Does the political class and media class really believe the public is more interested in the personal advancement of Barack Obama than their own advancement, as they do?

Because I don't believe that. I don't believe you need to hate Obama to agree with the proposition: I care greatly, greatly more about my own fortunes under Obama's governance than I do about Obama's personal political victories. In fact, I rather care nothing about that last one at all, except to the extent it's reflected in the former.

Meanwhile, first quarter GDP, initially estimated at a weak-pulsed 2.2%, has been revised down (shocker!) to a bleeding-out 1.9%.

The Dow Jones Economic Sentiment indicator just fell the most since 2008, and the Dow itself dropped 161 points yesterday, on concerns about Europe and the deteriorating economy.

We are now five short months before the election. The economy has been in depression (yes, depression) since Obama took office. He can make no credible case he's managed to improve it -- a Democratic pollster, Sidney Greenberg (if I recall his name correctly) says that focus-groups react hostilely to claims that the economy is recovering and doing well.

There are no signals it will improve, and now there are growing signals it will deteriorate still further.

Who exactly thought Obama would be favored, or even a near-lock, to win this election, and can the people who thought so now turn in their Prognostication Licenses now?

Rasmussen: Romney Leads Obama in Independents By Double-Digits. The overall lead is margin of error -- 46-44.

The lead with independents is 47 to 35, though.

To some extent I don't even care about polls. Polls, after all, are shaped by facts on the ground. People make choices based upon facts on the ground, which are then reflected in polls.

If you know the facts on the ground, you know the polls -- or you know, rather, what the polls will ultimately show.

Video of Axelrod's Goofing

—Ace

One chant I don't hear here, but which I read was chanted, was "Five more months! Five more months!"

The primary catcalls seem to be "Where are the jobs?" and "So-Lyyyyn-dra, So-Lyyyn-dra!"

I've asked @buzzfeedben and @buzzfeedandrew to craft a consistent style guide on when it's "heckling" or "protesting" (good words) and when it's "disrupting" or "shouting down." Don't be hard on them, though, because @buzzfeedandrew actually noted the point.

I think we're going to see a lot of this, from both sides. Hold the media's feet to the fire on its terminology -- "disrupt" suggests a crime (or a near-crime; sounds like disorderly person, sounds like assailing someone's right to speak) whereas "heckling" is something everyone can enjoy at a hapless buffoon's expense.

And "protesting" is of course positive.

As the campaign season goes on, we'll see the left's disruptions consistently described as "protests" and the right's counter-disruptions described as they were in the Town Hall protests -- thuggish, possibly racist attacks on America itself.

Don't let them do it. Insist they craft a style guidance on the terminology and stick to it, consistently, and I don't mean "consistently positive when the left is disruptive, and consistently negative when the right acts up."

It Begins: First Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down DOMA as "Unconstitutional"

—Ace

In the beginning of this debate, conservatives argued the laws of marriage must be uniform across states on fundamental issues.

Nonsense, the left said. Each state (or, more accurately, each state's courts, in the main) should be free to experiment. So what if we have a crazy-quilt of differing laws? That's what federalism is all about.

Conservatives argued back that if gay marriage were permitted, courts would quickly force it upon unwilling states, with the argument that marriage benefits must travel state lines.

Nonsense, the left said. A phantasmal worry, bordering on a lie. DOMA insures that this will not happen.

Well, now the First Circuit says DOMA is unconstitutional.

Turns out that crazy-quilt patchwork the left said would work isn't going to be permitted to work. They now join the former conservative position that marriage laws must be uniform on this issue... except they insist the law must be uniformly pro-gay-marriage.

I've been arguing this for a while: If you really want a constitutional amendment, do not outlaw gay marriage. It won't pass. We've already seen the polls.

If you want an amendment, amend the constitution to say that as marriage has existed as between a man and a woman since the beginning of the Republic, no court can claim that the federal constitution or any state constitution mandates it.

Which is obvious.

This will stop the madness of courts continually writing their own law on this issue.

If it passes in a state, it passes in a state. Such is democracy, and such is federalism.

But courts have no right to claim that the authors of the Constitution, and the states which passed it into law, considered same-sex marriage a right. Obviously they did not, and it's high time the courts stopped claiming otherwise.

The Constitution is authorized to be changed by one process-- the amendment process.

There is no provision in the Constitution to add to the Bill of Rights based on the current political whims of five judges.

Bizarro Issues Statement on Solyndra

—Ace

Double Post! Darnit, Laura beat me.

Anyway, let the double post stand.

Solyndra is racist, or something. It's a racist dog-whistle which subtly reminds racist voters of the age-old prejudice that minorities get get enough of cylinder-shaped thin-film solar panels.

Will no one call the GOP out for playing upon racist tropes like this?

"Then there's the president's policy to become a venture capitalist," Romney said Wednesday night at a campaign stop in Silicon Valley, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "That's a tough job. We've got a few venture capitalists in the audience tonight, I know. He's decided he can do it better than you guys can."

...

"Have you seen the Solyndra corporation headquarters? You probably have,� Romney asked. �That�s what happens when government puts in hundreds of millions of dollars into an enterprise. And by the way, the president doesn�t understand when you invest like that in one solar energy company, it makes it harder for solar technology generally because the scores of other entrepreneurs in the solar field suddenly lost their opportunity to get capital. Who wants to put money into a solar company when the government puts half a billion into one of its choice? So instead of encouraging solar energy, he discouraged it.�

"The president doesn't understand"? How dare you.

All that's missing from these quotes is a noose.

Comment From Bizarro: Me approve. Me plan to subsidize California plant building Giant Robots made of Kryptonite. We cannot lose Giant Kryptonite Robot race to China.

Me plan to give billionaire crony Lex Luthor $500 million to invest. If we no give Lex Luthor money, where he get money to invest?

If Giant Kryptonite Robots are success, Lex Luthor makes moneys.

If Giant Kryptonite Robots fail, we pick up cost.

This American way.

Who you trust, if you no trust Lex Luthor?

No thank you for your support,

Bizarro

Romney Speaks At Solyndra

—LauraW.

Salt in the wound.

"Who wants to put money in a solar company when a government puts a half a billion into one of its choice?" Romney asked, suggesting the Department of Energy loan could discourage entrepreneurs worried they would have to compete against the federal government. "They don't understand how the free economy works."

War on Unborn Women: Second Video Shows Planned Parenthood Staffers Explaining How To Get a Sex-Selection Abortion

—Ace

And, of course, the White House opposes any law to outlaw sex-selection abortions.

I'm not sure if it makes constitutional sense, especially for federalists (or those who say they're federalists) to seek a federal law here. The principle of "But this is important!" is offered by all people seeking federal law.

"But this is important!" is, if accepted as a predicate justifying federal action, essentially a green light for untrammeled federal power. It's basically the system we've been living under for 40 years. "But this is important!" ends in ObamaCare.

That said, there is certainly no reason why a state couldn't pass a law protecting women, and there's damnsure no reason why federal tax dollars should be used to conduct a war on women.

Flashback: In 2008, The New York Times Claimed Obama's Admitted Drug Use Was Probably Exaggerated For Effect

—Ace

Nice piece from Slate, of all places.

Factually, I mean. Let's just say I think the blogger here is a tad crabbed in what conclusions he's willing to draw; the words "Gee, sure seems like the New York Times was presenting its best spin on its product!" don't cross his lips.

Still, he got the fact of it. We can add in our own conclusions.

Here's the New York Times, quoting a passage from Obama's own book, describing how he's about to shoot up... heroin.

Yes, heroin. (As everyone on the right is now saying: My God, how did we not read this book?)

�Junkie. Pothead. That�s where I�d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man,� he penned in the memoir.

�

Mr. Obama describes a scene in that period where, in the meat freezer of a deli, he watched someone named Micky � �my potential initiator� � pull out �the needle and the tubing,� apparently to shoot up heroin. Alarmed, Mr. Obama wrote that he imagined how an air bubble could kill him.

Well, a presidential candidate who smokes pot, did "a little blow," and was one plunge away from shooting up heroin.

That's somethin'.

But the Times didn't think so.

The Times spun this to readers who might be a little alarmed by the Junkie President, to reassure him, "Don't sweat it, he's just lying. He lies a lot."

Mr. Obama�s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.

In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana.

Except... he says he did "a little blow."

That's one witness, right? The man himself writing his first autobiography?!

But the Times talked to three dozen "friends" and classmates, and they weren't willing to rat on him, so they actually claimed he was lying in his book.

I guess they never spoke to the old Choom Gang, huh?

Who the hell did they speak to? Bill Ayers?

Is the Times now willing to correct this article?

Disaster In Boston

—LauraW.

David Axelrod has been dispatched to Boston to deliver a press conference at the State House. This is not just an ordinary campaign launch; it is calculated as a symbolic blow against Romney right in his former stomping grounds.

Naturally, the lefty base in a blue city in a blue state have assembled in droves to welcome Mr. Axelrod.

Not so much.

Romney supporters have swarmed the State House, to the chagrin of the Obama staffers and the detriment of any photo-op Axelrod may have wanted to create.

For pic after pic of Romney supporters ruining the day for Obama's campaign staff, see Ryan Williams' twitter feed this morning.

Ryan Williams ‏@RyanGOP

.@DavidAxelrod forced to walk through the crowd of Obama Isn't Working protesters to get to the podium.

Crushed. This moment, it is lost to them.

Tipped from Slublog, who remarks that this "...makes me feel a bit...optimistic about the Romney campaign's organizational skills..."

Oh, my yes.

This Embarrassing Clip of Elizabeth Warren Melting Down When Asked About Her Family Lore Is So Good It Hurts

—Ace

[Above-the post addendum - Andy: It looks like Fauxcahontas' admission referred to in Drew's earlier post came after Chief Patrick of the MassDem tribe shielded her from this cowboy reporter's well-aimed fire. I'd love to have heard the conversation that took place after the interview below. Watch the whole thing, but the really good stuff starts around the 1:30 mark.]

Deval Patrick steps in to shield her.

Can't stand on her own two feet? Gee, that's a great image to project. Good one, Deval.

Sometimes chivalry is counterproductive.

Unfortunately, I don't think Elizabeth Warren is going to be our opponent.

Oh, I know, people say they don't care. And yet, while not caring, they consume the news every day.

People say they don't care because they know they're supposed to be caring about impersonal issues.

Yeah, well. Scott Brown is not too shabby on the issues (as far as a Massachusetts voter). Sure, he's a hardcore conservative extremist (in Massachusetts), but they voted for him once and don't seem to mind him thusfar.

So you've got a wash on that, 50/50. And then you know this other woman can't seem to open her fool mouth without claiming some sort of genetic link to Sitting Bull.

You can't win a race if you're a laughingstock.

She cannot admit her lie; it would destroy her. And yet her lie is plain for all to see. It's as plain as the white on her face.

Thus, it continues, and thus, it will continue continuing. There is no way out here.

Thanks to Andy.

Vote 5 Bizarro!

—Ace

I questioned @davidaxelrod on Twitter, wondering if his complaint that Massachusetts' 4.7% unemployment rate, under Romney, just wasn't very good.

I thought maybe he was running a candidate on Bizarro Earth, and got his briefing books mixed up?

Anyway, Bizarro then laid out his plan for America.

It just looks a lot like Barack Obama's.

Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren: Yeah, I lied When I Said I Didn't Tell Harvard I Was A High-Cheekboned American

—DrewM.

She's not an honest injun.

�At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,�� she said in a statement issued by her campaign. �My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I�m proud of it and I have been open about it.��

Warren�s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage.

When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald.

Scott Brown is a lucky, lucky man.

The bigger issue which we should look at is the race spoils system in this country. Why is the government collecting data on people's race in this country when it's an almost meaningless concept in a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society such as ours. Almost everyone has a little of this, a little of that in their family tree (well, not Warren, she's straight up white it turns out). Why is the government interested in this? How much is enough or not enough to qualify for special status? You'd think we'd be working to move beyond the "one drop" standard yet the liberal-grievance industry seems hell bent on dragging us back there.

Top Headline Comments 5-31-2012

—Andy

Last day of May? Bring on teh Summer.

Overnight Open Thread (5-30-2012)

—Maetenloch

The Jenny McCarthy Body Count

I kinda feel bad about this post since Jenny McCarthy seems to be a well-meaning, compassionate albeit not particularly bright person who thought she was helping - but alas such people can still end up doing incredible harm to others.

One of the greatest achievements of modern technology is that we have been able to defeat the infectious diseases that routinely killed most children throughout history. Huge amounts of money and years and years of dedicated, patient work by scientists and doctors went into this project so that parents wouldn't have to suffer the heartbreak of burying half of all their children - a regular occurrence up until the last century or so.

And for a few brief years we achieved this. But it turns out that a well-meaning blonde B-list celebrity and her activism could undo much of this work in only a few years.

In June 2007 Jenny McCarthy began promoting anti-vaccination rhetoric. Because of her celebrity status she has appeared on several television shows and has published multiple books advising parents not to vaccinate their children. This has led to an increase in the number of vaccine preventable illnesses as well as an increase in the number of vaccine preventable deaths.

Now vaccines are not perfectly safe but they do save a quantifiable number of children's lives every year. So it would be foolish to give up a known life-saving good for a unproven benefit based on a celebrity mother's 'strong feelings' who also happens to believe that she's an indigo child and her son is a crystal. Yet here we are.

Oh and you can thank the backward Islamists of Afghanistan and Pakistan for why mankind is still plagued by polio, the great killer and crippler of children, despite a safe and effective vaccine being available for over 50 years.

John Sununu Humiliates Obama Surrogate Soledad O'Brien & CNN

—Ace

Pretty good.

Exit questions from Allah:

Does Barack Obama worry about the fact that one of his top bundlers is Jon Corzine?

...

Has there been any sustained effort yet by any major news outlet to investigate that $150,000 hush-money offer that Jeremiah Wright claims he received from Obama buddy Eric Whitaker in 2008? Allegations of a big-money bribe made on a sitting president�s behalf used to be news in this country. Any takers?

Speaking of that: It's time to dig on Whitaker.

Whitaker�s role in Obama�s world is important because, as Patrick Brennan has pointed out on National Review Online, �it�s almost impossible to overstate how close Whitaker is to the president.� He�s been a friend of and fundraiser for Obama for nearly 20 years and has joined the first family on every summer and Christmas vacation since 2008. Politico reported in 2009 that Whitaker had become �a kind of gatekeeper and spokesman for Obama�s inner circle.�

Whitaker has also been involved in Illinois�s always shady politics. He became the state�s top health official in 2003 when he was appointed by then-governor Rod Blagojevich, now a resident of federal public housing after his conviction in 2011 on corruption charges. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2008, Obama gave Whitaker �a �glowing� reference to Tony Rezko,� who interviewed him for the job. Rezko, a friend of Obama�s for two decades and a top fundraiser for both Obama and Blagojevich, is also now in federal prison on corruption charges. Prosecutors alleged that Rezko engineered pay-to-play schemes with Blagojevich to help allies secure jobs. Neither Obama nor Whitaker was implicated during Rezko�s trial.

Red-Faced Sack of Stupid Ed Schultz Panics: If Romney is Elected, There Will Never Again Be Another Democratic President In Our Lifetimes

—Ace

Your offer is accepted.

Now, when I saw this, I wanted to change it from "Romney" to "Walker" because Walker is currently the key to everything.

But the Red-Faced Rage-Ape actually makes this point for me.

I guess I'm talking to lefties right now. Not that the rest of you can't listen and we love it when you do.

But it's pretty clear to me what's happening here. They are trying to set it up that if Mitt Romney gets elected, if Mitt Romney gets elected, there will never be a Democratic president again in the history of the United States. The future is just, this is the way it's going to be. There'll never be a Democratic president in our lifetime again. And when I say in our lifetime, I'm talking about long, long, long, long, long time.

This is why Wisconsin's so important. The people of the country need to know that you can defeat it.

I enjoyed when he said he "guesses" he's talking to lefties, but other people can listen, too.

Who else would be listening? Apart from people paid to listen, like Newsbusters.

I don't know what non-Wisconites can do to help this weekend. If anyone knows, please let me know.

If you're a Wisconsinite, listen to Ed Schultz. The Revolution starts now, and the opening battle is Wisconsin.

Desperation: MSNBC now devoting entire segments to non-mainstream Mormon Mannichean prophecy.

Um, but I'm not allowed to bring up Obama being listed as "Religion: Islam" in his Indonesian school application? Or Reverend Wright?

Right?

Feds: Walker's Job Figures Are, Indeed, Accurate

—Ace

Walker released some job figures early, leading to claims they were fake.

Nope.

Real.

Obama's New Attack on Romney: Romney's Policies Were An Economic Failure Because Massachusetts' Unemployment Rate Was 4.7%

—Ace

4.7%.

Romney's policies did not produce enough jobs.

Merely full employment (5% is usually considered full employment).

Don't vote for the guy whose unemployment rate, while Governor, was 4.7%.

Vote for the guy who's had a 8+% unemployment record for three and a half years. The guy with the worst 30 months of employment in 25 years.

See, that's the guy you should trust on job creation.

The 8+% guy.

And, by the way, the unemployment rate is not 8%. It's really 11%.

So vote for 11% unemployment guy. This 4.7% unemployment guy is obviously some kind of incompetent parvenu.

More: I was going to say, "Is there any doubt that if Obama's record was close to 4.7%, he'd have it in every single ad?"

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the same thing, in response to a query (I guess) from NR:

�This is another desperate attack from President Obama because he has no positive record to run on. Mitt Romney created more jobs in the state of Massachusetts than President Obama has for the entire nation. President Obama has failed to meet his own goal of 6 percent unemployment and has a net negative record on job creation. We�re happy to compare the 4.7 percent unemployment rate Mitt Romney was able to accomplish. If President Obama had even half the job creation record of Mitt Romney, then he would be running on it.�

On the other hand, Obama has promised Julia she'd grow up to be a web designer, or some other job held by heroines in romantic comedy films.

Caution & Optimism on Wisconsin, and a Thank You

—CAC

Now, after all the public polling has consistently shown Walker up, there is this tiny voice in the back of my head saying, "they could be wrong."

It has been there the whole time, especially after weeks of positive data for Walker. Hell, the Democrats took THIS long to push out a tied poll that oversampled Madison and Milwaukee. They waited until Wednesday before. Which I had predicted would happen in previous threads.

But no matter. Incorporating all the Democratic push polls on a trend line, Pollster finds the race a close one, with Walker up less than a point. When these push polls are removed, as Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight thinks they should (and he's not exactly sympathetic to Walker), Walker's lead explodes.

So what if they are actually somewhat right?

There are a few things that can happen that can cost Walker the race at this point. I'll refute most of them, but the "sleepless nights" biggie is number 4:

1) ALL the data available is wrong.
Every single professional pollster is totally off the mark and Barrett wins this hands down. Very, very, very unlikely, as the on-the-ground evidence of enthusiasm doesn't back this up. Through Tuesday, only 21,600 votes were cast early in Madison and Milwaukee. 133,000 asbsentees (including these early votes) were issued through yesterday. The Republican party sent out 500,000 forms for absentees for voters to help counter any early ground ops by the Democrats and to avoid discouragement of voters by long lines. If we were looking at 50, 60, 70,000 vote totals out of the largest areas after over a solid week and a half of early voting, I would be saying the numbers are wrong, but I just don't see it. Republicans are showing up for early voting. Milwaukee and Dane have a total population 25 times larger than Brookfield, Wisconsin (in Waukesha), but Brookfield has already issued 3500 absentees and received 2550 back. There is solid logic in thinking a lot of these early votes/absentees being reported are pro-Walker.

2) The Republican GOTV does not materialize in the Milwaukee burbs, Green Bay, and the western upper third of the state. Again, hardly likely. These areas have the largest victory offices for Walker, have had tremendous requests for absentee ballots, and may match or beat Dane County turnout levels (see the Brookfield statistics above).

3) Analysis of margin victories per region are way off.
This could be likely, especially if there is a shockingly enormous turnout in the largest Democratic regions NOT matched by the rest of the state, but again from the numbers we actually have, that is not materializing. To win the state, Barrett needs to build upon his 160,000 vote margin gained from Dane and Milwaukee in 2010 by about another 65,000 and maintain his 2010 levels in the rest of the state. The polling by Marquette finds him drowning in the enormous Milwaukee Metro area and getting pulverized everywhere west and northward outside of Madison. Fraud accusations aside, had Bush won the same counties and margins Walker did, or even Prosser, in much of Northern and Western Wisconsin, he would have beaten Gore and Kerry. On the ground volunteer efforts may help Barrett in SW/W Wisconsin to keep "BlueWis" solid, but even in the primary, several of these Kerry/Gore/Obama counties went more for Walker than all the Democrats combined.

Barrett has a very, very narrow path that involves explosive turnout OUTSIDE of his base cities and depressed Republican turnout. The recent push polls showing a closer race may backfire on Democratic plans to psyche out Republicans- by convincing them that the race is actually closer, you give the right an even stronger reason to turn out and save their guy.

4. Overconfidence amongst the Republicans.
More and more analysts are calling the race for Walker. Intrade has him sky high. I don't put the Governor's odds anywhere near the 94% level that trading site is giving him, but he has a solid shot, somewhere in the high 70s, of beating this thing. Overconfidence worries me, so always go into an election thinking your candidate is losing. If the line is long and you need to get to work, tell your boss you came down with ebola and you'll be running late. Take nothing for granted here.
//
Above anything else, my love of data and numbers makes me want to be right, even if it pains me. I was prepared for some polls showing tightening today (not the silly Dem poll, but the serious Marquette Law), because of the noise the left keeps saying about "the right has no idea its totally the opposite!". Well, Marquette confirmed what I already sensed- the race is in the mid-single digits for Walker and the left is on red alert to stop that. The question is, are we on red alert to keep him there?

I get a lot of you are pissed that we keep talking about Wisconsin. Every day, another poll, or news article, or map. We are almost through on this. After recall night coverage Tuesday, I will be taking a short hiatus from co-blogging here. I'll be dropping by to update the daily tracker, maybe shoot Ace an email, but constantly watching all the info trickling in wears you down, and I need to be ready to help out when the general election heats up. My fiancee has been incredibly supportive, loading me with coffee to stay awake to get the jump on the latest bit down the pipe. I want to thank all of you in Wisconsin and elsewhere for posting various reports, tweeting over polling and commentary, and emailing me some good leads on this race. I also want to thank Ace publicly for giving me the opportunity to share all of this data ripping through my brain.

After weeks of effort, the guest bloggers, morons, moronettes, and lurkers who are collectively working on bringing full coverage Tuesday night will, with a little luck, cap off what I hope has been a helpful and accurate resource for you. We won't spin the results and will make the call, even if its the one we loathe the most. I thank all of you for taking the news shared here productively, and hopefully the fruit of the efforts of millions involved in this fight will be victory for Walker in six short days. Thanks for following along, and remember: this fight is far from over. Do your part.

Time: Listen Up, Young Voters! Living At Home With Your Parents Into Your 30s Is Freakin' Awesome!!!!

—Ace

You're welcome. And vote Obama.

First we had "Funemployment," which the media informed us was the exhilarating liberation from regular wages, and the freedom to explore all those hobbies you never had the time to when you had a job, so long as those hobbies are free.

And now -- adults forced by the Obama Depression to live with their parents until their thirty are, well, Lucky Duckies indeed!

The Great Recession has brought with it a reevaluation of the American Dream, and even whether a college degree is worth the money. Now, the idea of living at home with your parents isn�t associated with failure or a lack of achievement. More likely, young adults living with their parents are thought of as victims of unfortunate circumstances, with plenty of good company.

They may also be considered to be pretty smart customers: At the very least, they weren�t foolish enough to buy a home that they couldn�t afford�and that promptly declined in value by 50%. That�s what so many adults, young and old alike, did five or so years back. To homeowners who are deeply underwater or facing foreclosure, living debt-free in your parents� home must sound like a nice possibility.

Other recently published columns�penned by older writers, it must be noted�have suggested that young Americans who stay at home lack a sense of independence, adventure, and ambition. The New Yorker�s James Surowiecki speculated that �all the young adult Americans who have spent the past few years living with their parents� represent enormous �pent-up demand,� and that as soon as this group manages to leave the nest, they�ll help lead an economic boom through their spending related to all of the new households they form.

The only problem with this theory, besides the still-stagnant jobs market, is that many young adults don�t seem to be in much of a hurry to leave their parents� warm, comfortable nests.

Wait, let me see if I have this right. A columnist opined that adults still living with their parents lack independence and ambition, and your rebuttal is that they don't "seem to be in much of a hurry to leave their parents' warm, comfortable nests"?

Were you absent the day they taught the meaning of "independence" and "ambition" in school?

I don't blame young people for the Obama catastrophe -- well, sort of I do, as they voted for him. But they didn't vote for this.

But this writer seems determined to cast their lot as just wonderful, so I have to call him on this absurd spinning.

Yes, if you are living at your parents', and do not have an ambition to be independent, then you do in fact lack ambition and a sense of independence. It's sort of right there in the predicate, isn't it?

Thank you, @ben84. This is my favorite story of the week.

Flashback: The LA Times, June 2009. Here's their opening hed, subhed, and picture.

For the 'funemployed,' unemployment is welcome

These jobless folks, usually singles in their 20s and 30s, find that life without work agrees with them. Instead of punching the clock, they're hitting the beach.

In case you've forgotten (and I doubt you have), none of that is parody. That is lifted directly from the LA Times. Check if you don't believe me.

Obama: I Know More About Judaism Than Any Other President Because I Read About It

—Ace

Other presidents don't read, and probably had no top Jewish advisors and cabinet secretaries.

Or friends.

At a meeting with Jewish leaders, according to Haaretz's reporting:

"Obama ... stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it," Haaretz reports. "[He] wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel [sic] about their support to Israel."

Similarly, he said to the group, "I [am] not going to tell you again how I even feel about Israel, but why [are] we still talking about it?"

Of course I love you, My Wife. Why must you keep making me say so?!?! Don't you know how it burns my throat to say I love you, even though I totally, totally do?

He then suggested that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because "all his friends in Chicago were Jewish - and at the beginning of his political career he was accused of being a puppet of the Israel lobby," Haaretz reports.

Well, at the beginning of his political career, he was being introduced to voters in the home of archleftist terrorist bombers William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and himself feted Israel hater and PLO sympathizer Rashid Khalidi, so I guess it's quite possible he was called a pawn of the Jews at the beginning of his career.

Mama Winger Explains Romney's Improving Favorability With Women, and Obama's Falling Favorability With Women

—Ace

I like successful men. Most women do. Obama is increasingly showing himself to be not that.

I was going to post something like this, then decided I didn't feel like it, then Mama Winger wrote this so I guess I should.

I think 80% of real-life thinking isn't precisely thinking. It's a sort of muscle memory/reflex. I call it "pre-rational." It's not irrational or illogical, because it's based on experience and intuition and not delusion, but neither is it strictly, formally logical.

It's your gut and your instincts, and a whole mess of other stuff, like foundational assumptions about what you value more and what you value less (or not at all).

Lefties rally to Chris Hayes because the pre-rational bits of their brains tell them that Intellectuals and Writers are Inherently Good (Joan Vollmer is unavailable for comment), and men who actually do things, like protect them from harm, are sort of dirty and bad.

You can't argue them out of such things -- you can't argue someone out of something they were never argued into in the first place. They will always claim that the military is unnecessary, largely out of ego (if this virtue called physical courage is good, and yet I am deficient in it, then I am not perfect; therefore, this virtue called physical courage must not be good, because I'm pretty darned sure I'm perfect, or at least as near to perfect as a non-Obama human is capable).

Now while I'm picking on liberals' more irrational thought patterns, we all have this sort of pre-rational system operating in our brains, making decisions before we're even aware that our brains have made a decision at all.

During the primaries, I kept stressing Romney's devotion to his wife and his five apparently outstanding children.

My reason for that was my idea of the pre-rational. On a rational level, you might object to this and say, correctly enough as a matter of strict logic, "Romney's personal values and family life do not say a great deal about his hypothetical performance as president."

As a formal matter of strict syllogistic logic, I'd agree with you, but then I'd point out: People make decisions on a pre-rational basis, most of the time, anyway.

Does Romney hold any appeal for women? (Note that I insist that men have their own series of pre-rational notions, but I'm concentrating on women's simply because this is the part I want to write about.)

Well, let's see. He's handsome. Not in a sexually-charged way, of course, but that's a plus for some (but not all) women.

He was fantastically successful in business and seems competent at whatever he sets his mind to. He's a hard worker who makes sure all the boxes are checked and doesn't leave much to chance and whim.

He's not, then, some kind of shiftless dreamer who thinks about doing big things but never gets around to doing any of them. He actually does them.

He's devoted to his one wife of, what, 40 years? Whatever the number is. During that time he's been, apparently, faithful as a saint, and has sired five children who appear to be devoted to him (which in turn suggests he was devoted to them).

Now, we're choosing a president, here, and not a potential spouse, but such things probably don't escape women's notice. Even if some women don't notice they notice.

Hey, they don't escape my notice, and I'm a dude. If I had to marry a dude....

Selecting a president is not just about ideology. It's about personal characteristics, too. It's about the sort of person we'd like to call our president -- and that sort of evaluation is very much like the process of choosing who we'd like to have as friends, or a spouse, or, if we could choose such things, a family member.

Mitt Romney has been astonishingly successful in his career.

Barack Obama has, too, but it's a curious sort of success: A constant "social promotion" based only on his purported potential, never upon anything he actually achieved.

Mitt Romney has achieved, and he's received the natural fruits of achievement -- money, fame, influence.

Barack Obama has received the natural fruits of achievement, without bothering with that difficult "achievement" business in the first instance.

Mitt Romney seems like a Man.

Obama seems like a Boy who's been spoiled since birth.

Mitt Romney seems like a Man who got everything he wanted because he had talent and dedication and focus and worked for everything he wanted.

Barack Obama seems like a Boy who got everything the way many (myself included) secretly wish they could get them -- by having them mostly just given to him.

Some of us might pine for that sort of Charmed Life of Reilly, but comparing the two pathways to success, I don't think there's much doubt about which road we find more evincing of character and competence.

Obama seems weak and out of his depth, while Romney appears strong and in command.

Yes, I think women will notice these things, and so will men. I have trouble imagining how anyone could miss them.