If anything one might think the storm would depress voter turnout in already blue states.

Also neither Obama nor Romney have really embarked upon a progressive mission to end Hurricanes.

Dammit Romney! Romney contrary to the “copyright” was a principled man.

Of course Newt Gingrich was an “immoral” man with interesting ideas about using government to push technology (moon colonies)…and really cheap gasoline (which we might get anyways…because the real Trend, or Mo is in the direction of increasing access to american energy resources and development.) (Obama sort of did this, and sort of didn’t)…

But one could immagine that under a Newt Gingrich both the DOD and the department of Energy would have gotten even more funding.

So Newt seemed the republican most in tune with Patent. (For what that is worth).

Newt might have gone for a Salter’s Sink deployment in the gulf (after all part of the idea for the mechanics of it…came from studying the changes to ocean water surface temperature, that oil rigs in the gulf produced as an externality…(positive).

By cooling the surface water and making it more oxygen rich…the ecology is also improved…(the best fishing is actually near the oil rigs.)

So without a doubt Salter’s Sinks would have increased shrimp yields in the Gulf.

But more importantly a decrease in the ocean water surface temperature would work to downgrade tropical storms and Hurricanes before and as they form.

So global warming is real in terms of the measured numbers. And the increase in ocean water temperatures is real, and what this can cause in the form of stronger tropical storms and hurricanes is real.

But there is also a very real way to decrease the ocean water surface temperature. Salter’s Sink.

In any case in terms of the election, I think Nate Silver is closest to being right.

Romney should have moved a bit towards Gingrich in terms of thinking about/talking about one large patent based solution. (and it should have been Salter’s Sink) The manufacturing folks in Ohio who aren’t union democrats of an older variety…really do hear about and to various degrees implement six sigma (lean manufacturing/Muda…all that jazz).

“There is always more than enough hope to vote. We would be a far better country if more people would take the trouble, even if they think they will lose.”

Maybe, but with an election this close I think it is likely that folks make more of an effort if they think they might lose. (few folks in Ohio are not going to vote)

i.e. what is the sense of voteing in California (models show depressed voter turnout)?

It sort of is the electoral college that makes the outcome in certain states a foregone conclusion. (and what really enables Nate Silver’s fairly certain predictions).

Mr. Marshall: As I said all summer, Romney is a terrible, terrible candidate. He’s all in on TARP and other bailout nonsense (does anyone remember that the GM bailouts were done via TARP, which was clearly a grossly illegal use of that slush fund, no matter how liberal one is with the terms of that legislative atrocity?), and I don’t believe for one second he will do anything to repeal Obamacare. He’s going to absolutely fold on coming close to a balanced budget, and we’re all going to get crushed by economic catastrophe in coming years. Do I hope he wins? Yes, yes I do. But that’s because I can’t imagine a GOP option being any worse than Obama. Oh, he’ll be horrible in different ways, and overall a bit less horrible, but still just horrible. Unfortunately the third party options are all ridiculous jokes…

Your vote is not just an ascent to a candidate, it is an assent to a point of view. Its effects are cumulative and are frilled away by lowered turnout on the part of your point of view, whoever the candidate and whatever the outcome.

Kierkegaard would have much fun at the expense of today’s fetishism with polls and statistics

I don’t think Mitt will be anything but terrible on the issues that matter–less terrible than Obama, on the whole, but still just plain terrible. So why should I vote for him?

Seriously? You need to get out more, sir. That’s what you get for being an academic, I suppose. A vast number of evangelicals didn’t trust Bush in 2000 (and the last-minute DUI was catastrophic for him with this group) but were more than happy to come out in 2004. Plus, there were TONS of 9/11 Democrats. How could you not have known ANYONE in this demo?

“The new PEW poll has Obama up three, and with a larger lead than that when it comes to strong supporters.”

Really? This flies in the face of everything I’ve ever seen or heard about this campaign. In fact, I don’t believe this number for one nanosecond. All accounts are that there are plenty of broken-glass anti-Obama voters, and that Dem voters are distinctly meh about the whole thing.

To me this FEELS like Romney’s got it. I can’t think of a winning campaign I’ve ever seen that bore ANY resemblance to O’s campaign this past month. But we shall soon see…