I don't know what's going to happen in tomorrow's election. As John Cassidy cautiously notes, in a post predicting Obama will accumulate 303 electoral votes (that's his electoral map I've copied in here), the only preferences that matter won't be known till tomorrow night. But there are reasons for us blue-coats to be ruddy. Nate Silver, who in 2008 made 49 correct calls (the exception being Indiana, which he put in the McCain column), gives all the most renowned toss-up states to Obama: New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida--Florida!--Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada. (Willard wins North Carolina.) Romney's lead in the national polls has pretty much disappeared, and Obama's lead in polls of the states that matter may be fairly characterized as small but consistent and, if anything, growing.
What really makes me optimistic, however, is the dopey things Republicans are saying. Whenever you hear one talk about the size of Romney's crowds, and their enthusiasm, you know they know they're losing. So why should I disagree? Saw Newt Gingrich tonight on CNN talking about "parallel universes." There is the real world and then there is the world according to Nate Silver and The New York Times. In the real world, Romney is surging as surely as are his crowds. (Won't it be nice to retire that verb--"to surge"--till the next election season?) Newt, like Michael Barone, projects an easy Romney win.
Well, we shall soon see which parallel universe bumps into a nonethereal body and crumbles.
One more note: Scrolling around on The Internet for interesting election news, I find the following from Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei at Politico:
If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That's what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it's possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.
A broad mandate this is not.
Obama may win, but if he does, it's tainted, you see, because among whites he could only win the overcaffeinated, hypereducated ones. "Real Americans prefer Romney." That's what they mean, right? When was a recent Republican win ever qualified by the observation that, having failed to win a majority of nonwhites, single women, and holders of advanced degrees, there could be no broad mandate? Broad mandates, it seems, are for Billy Bob to confer.
