Newton’s First Law of Motion Applied to Political Strategy (With a Brief Excursus on Gaffes)

Have you ever wondered why political strategists — and by extension, the rest of us — are obsessed by polls? It is not because polls tell them what is going to happen. On the contrary, polls can be notoriously unreliable. Consider, to take a recent example, the Wisconsin recall election in June. As the time approached, the polls narrowed and what had a short while earlier seemed like a shoo-in for Scott Walker now seemed up for grabs. I had several anxious emails from politically mature friends in Wisconsin who were on the verge of despair, but, hey, Walker won in a veritable landslide — take away the extensive voter fraud, and you can also take away the word “veritable.” The true margin for Walker was probably something like 60/40.

The case of Scott Walker and the misleading polls touches on a critical reality in modern politics, the reality of inertia. Many people, when they hear the word “inertia,” think it means primarily a resistance to motion or initiative. Isaac Newton had a broader conception of the phenomenon: Yes, “inertia” describes the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest but also (absent countervailing forces) the tendency of a body in motion to remain in motion.

This fundamental law of nature has great, if metaphorical, application in the realm of politics. Among other things, it helps to explain the prominence of polls in the metabolism of our political life.

Polls are odd things. Many of them, let’s face it, are more expressions of hope than fact. And even the best polls — into which category I’d put Rasmussen and (formerly: see below) Gallup — usually have a large element of uncertainty about them.

Why, then, are political strategists as obsessed with polls as a haruspex is with the aviary? Inertia. Strategists and, by extension, journalists and the public at large look to the polls as the Romans looked to the entrails of birds: suitably interpreted, they could foretell the future.

I suspect that among Romans there was as much skepticism about the predictive power of bird guts as, in our saner moments, we entertain about polls. Deep down, we know they are flawed. But polls have this great advantage: by pretending to tell us what will happen, they can create the currents of sentiment that build momentum. Momentum creates inertia. Inertia, as Newton saw, has the aura of inevitably. Hope becomes father to the deed.

This fact helps explain why everyone interested in politics looks closely at the “bounce” politicians receive after the national conventions. Romney had his at the end of August, then Obama had his after Charlotte.

There was, however, a difference. Poll watchers had noted that both Rasmussen and Gallup were trending towards Romney. The Obama administration did not like this. Rasmussen, an explicitly conservative pollster, was out of reach. Not so Gallup. It was the work of a moment for the Department of Justice to institute an “unrelated” lawsuit against Gallup and for David Axelrod, Obama’s chief enforcer aide, to contact Gallup and, as the Daily Caller put it, attempt to “subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.” I hope you appreciate the word “subtly.”

I do not know what Axelrod said, or how the officials at Gallup responded. I do know that Gallup’s polls, which had been pretty close to Rasmussen’s, suddenly started to diverge and show a trend more favorable to the president. Propter hoc? Or merely post hoc? I’m not sure we’ll ever know for sure.

But my main point here is to highlight the role of polls in establishing or abetting the momentum of inertia. It’s a largely psychological phenomenon that can have a material coefficient. Polls register the perception of momentum; by means of an alchemy we do not fully comprehend, that perception of momentum begets the reality of momentum. Ultimately, it can beget the confidence of inevitably. The reality of inevitability will always elude the politician, as the headline “Dewey Beats Truman” should remind us. But it remains a coveted advantage, which is why politicians and their handlers so crave it.

And this brings me to my excursus on gaffes. If gaffes were as important as some people think, Joe Biden would long ago have been laughed out of office. And Obama would not be far behind: remember his invocation of the “57” states, or his lament for the “corpsemen”? Here’s the mysterious thing about gaffes: sometimes they are damaging, even fatal, sometimes they matter not at all. What makes the difference? Why was Dan Quayle’s potato(e) gaffe a spud of historic dimensions while Obama’s 57 shades of gray went nowhere damage-wise?

A brief, incomplete, but not inaccurate answer is our new friend, inertia. With the wind of inertia at your back, gaffes are like bugs on your windshield: tiny nuisances that can be wiped away with a little spritz of explanation and the back-and-forth motion a fresh day brings. Absent that advantage, a gaffe is like an albatross, weighing down a candidate in the windless doldrums of inactivity.

In the larger economy of political life, gaffes should be nothing more than minor nuisances. If a politician communicates a clear and compelling vision of the future, then gaffes recede into insignificance. Absent that vision, they can become damaging hand grenades, lobbed by an opposition bent on disrupting your message. When that happens, even non gaffes can be made to look life gaffes. Consider, for example, Mitt Romney’s manly response to the murder of Chris Stevens, our ambassador to Libya, on September 11:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

Good stuff, no? But team Obama (aided by their press officers at TheNew York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) jumped all over it.

If Romney’s initial statement was robust and exactly the stuff to give the troops, his response to the media onslaught was poor. There was an unfortunate deer-in-the-headlights aspect to his demeanor as reporters pummeled him with questions. Did he think he went off half-cocked? Did he regret criticizing the president as events were unfolding? Romney eventually came out with the correct answer, more or less, but he seemed fixated on the word “breach,” which he repeated four or five times (can’t have those bad guys breaching our embassy walls, you know). Obama set the tone when he said that Romney had a tendency to shoot before he aims.

This was regarded as a “gotcha” comment, but I think Mitt Romney ought to have turned the tables on the president. He ought to have defended his original statement briefly, almost off-handedly. The administration began by apologizing for America. That is always the wrong response, Romney ought to have said. Our ambassador, and three other Americans, were murdered by Islamist thugs because our security was inadequate. That is the issue, and don’t muddy the waters with partisan irrelevancies.

Finally, let me observe that there is often a lot to be said for shooting before you take aim. If your principles are correct, if your vision is clear, you are already aiming in the right direction. Just pull the trigger. In fact, this is something Obama understands perfectly well. His administration has unleashed a continuous barrage since January 2009. I happen to think he is aiming in exactly the wrong direction. But his instincts about when (if not what) to shoot are correct. If your principles are clear, you don’t need focus groups and the abundance of caution they instill. You need a simple, clear, and (I’ll use the dread word again) manly policy for the country. I think that, deep down, Mitt Romney has such a vision. Hitherto, he has allowed it to be obscured by too diligent adherence to the false wisdom of focus groups. The path to victory is cleared by the candidate that has momentum. Inertia in the positive, irresistible sense is within Romney’s grasp. He needs but seize it.

When the candidate himself semi-wilts under the heat of a premeditated* press conference … well, we need to acknowledge that the “response team” include Romney himself.

* Yeah, the press were caught on a live mike coordinated their questions ahead of it. This is bad, but needs to be accounted for during the campaign. Afterwords … well, “for the first time in my life” after Reagan I’ll be proud of the Republican party if a president in it denies press credentials and all other access to the pack of Democratic MSM jackals. Let them whine on the outside.

Don’t feel bad, Fausta. Kimball is known for his love of obscure words. Why, that retromingent old curmudgeon has emitted a veritable congeries of rebarbative obfuscations and anfractuosities in his day! From time to time I’ve suspected him of amphigory. “Haruspex” is merely the latest in a long train of abuses.

Romney needs to stiffen his spine, stand his ground, simplify his message and stay focused. He and his entire team need to ignore the polls, particularly in the swing states. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating.

We shut up when a pollster calls. We will show up on Nov 6.

That said, your point is well-taken: “The path to victory is cleared by the candidate that has momentum. Inertia in the positive, irresistible sense is within Romney’s grasp. He needs but seize it.”

That depends. Simon’s analogy in the military arts is called ‘covering fire’ or ‘suppression fire’. The ideas is if you force your enemy to hide instead of shooting, you can get close enough to kill him. It is an old idea, from the early days of gunpowder. In the 21st century, you can target something from the other side of the planet and hit it. Why scare them when you can kill them?
By not talking to pollsters, we (conservatives) are setting up an ambush. If the Donks think they are ahead, Honey Bo-Bo will stay home instead of voting. IF they do, the 0bumbler is toast.
Beside, there is the pleasure of watching Wolf Blitzer, who believes his own lies, gasping ” I can’t believe the polls were this wrong”. Remember Wolf in 2010? him picking up and dropping that paper with the bad news as reality Jill slapped him.
Ii would be really great if somebody in the entertainment business started a new reality show in Nov, 06, 2012. Keep those big, fat Honey Bo Bo bottoms planted on the couch.
The media is scoring an own goal here. The more they brag about Obama’s lead (soon to become insurmountable) the more entitlement voters stay home. Either Mitt is smarter then he looks, or he remembers what Napoleon said; “The general who makes the last mistake, loses.”

Nice post. Though I always try to error on the side of caution and practicality, I still refuse to accept Americans can be so egregiously dumb to repeat such a massive mistake. I will pay no heed to these polls until days before the election.

Best I can tell from the mind numbing idiocy of Joe Biden as he spins the story, Barack Obama can claim only two successes: (1) Osama; (2) GM.

Last week, Islam put the Osama is Dead bragging right to rest. And unfortunately, GM is now proving to be nothing but a boondoggle that has hampered an economic recovery and cost the taxpayers billions in the pursuit. GM wants out – Obama refuses to sell.

Romney has once again been proven right – GM would have been far better handled as a managed bankruptcy. And Romney needs to drive that point home in the debates.

Obama is feckless. It is as obvious as day. Obama is a man with no rock of success and a mountain of failures and broken promises.

I refuse to believe America so stupid as to reelect such a fraud. In fact, woe to us if the vote is even close.

Yeah but … the MSM have erected an iron curtain around Romney — no matter what he says, “manly” or otherwise, the MSM will mock, ridicule and dismiss it. Seriously, what difference does it make what he says, bold or otherwise?

When Fox News, Matt Drudge and the like started to come on the scene, I though, “OK, good. Now, the new technology coupled with respectable outlets capable of publicizing the MSM’s egregious bias, will finally force journalists to respond with balance and objectivity — lest they lose their position as vaunted purveyors of objective truth.” It never occurred to me that, instead, they would eagerly double-down to become naked propagandists for the left.

Given the left’s takeover of K12, higher education, hollywood and the MSM, we’ve got serious, shall we say, “structural” problems. This structure has been constructed over 2-3 generations. Dismantling it will take at least as long, assuming it can actually be removed at all.

Anyway, I find it hard to criticize the Romney campaign — he’s damned no matter what he says or does.

(Don’t worry, I’ll be out there voting. Nothing could discourage me from that. I’m hoping for a landslide of epic proportions. My point is just that, given the inevitable MSM wall of ridicule, it isn’t obvious to me what the optimal strategy is for those guys.)

But if they’re going to skewer you anyway, shouldn’t one want to be skewered for being bold and assertive, rather than weak and mewling?
A tiger, once cornered, doesn’t curl up into the corner. He becomes instantly ferocious, striking with his last ounce of power, devil take the hindmost. That’s why he’s a tiger. That’s why we love and respect tigers.

Polls are a useful tool for those stuck making some definite campaign decisions, such as how much air time to buy in which markets at what times. They’re poor tools, but the only ones available, so they use them.

But when these poll results are then touted by the press as more universal indicators, they’re basically useless. We know this because it’s been measured. We know that exit polls give us very little accurate information about how people voted only a few minutes previously. That should be an easy one, with little room for statistical or systematic error. Yet results are not good.

In other words, the polls are crap, and we know it, but we keep treating them as if they’re real. It’s all baloney.

‘Get your first shot off quickly; It unnerves your opponent,
and gives you time to make your second shot perfect.’ – Heinlein

To anyone on the Romney strategy team who might be listening:
There is no reason to hold back this time, because there will be
no next time for the current two-party system; This is its Last Hurrah
before being overtaken by world-wide economic collapse and replaced
by whoever has the courage to cope with the tasks of reform and
reconstruction of the US and the rest of the world.

“if your vision is clear you are already aiming in the right direction-just pull the trigger”
the Old testament prophets God gave them this freedom with coal of fire on their put on their tongue by an angel and their tongue did not burn off and then predict the coming of the Chosen Great Nebuchadenezzar King of Babylon to bring all the rich in Israel and great poverty to their eyes have pure vision and the chosen stand in oven of fire and the Lion’s Den
The Great invasion of Islam to humble the byzantine bureaucrcy and other lazy Christians Would in not be a dream come true to see the fat meat teachers know on strike humble and change walk barefoot in the snow like Socrates and Teach without having to worry teacher has eyes on your 15 year old daughter from all his porno perversion on the internet
Think what a few wall placed 911s can do for this nation when the rich truly rub elbows with the poor and the middle class find True God in their lives instead of all their idols they slave over and their addictions out of control
The Mercy of God so you not thrown in hell in afterlife is creatively awe inspiring
Jesus say: ” Father forgive them for they know not what they do.’ Examine the history after and see if The Father listen to Jesus last dying words

with polls, and it is a problem that has been undermining our republic since they first became popular, is that they tell dishonest politicians what their lies should be. Without polls, there is no convenient and timely way for a political campaign to know the difference between a 55%, 45% percent split on some public issue versus a 50%,50% split. Faced with that lack of knowledge, politicians before polls were invented had much less of an incentive to lie because they had literally no clue which way to misrepresent their true attitudes — hence they usually decided to build their campaigns about what they really thought. So before polls were invented voters had a better idea of what they were voting for and politicians were more likely to be people you could respect.

Note that we could return to those days in an instant if as few as 15% of today’s voters decide to rescue our representative form of government by lying about their views whenever some poll calls them up. In fact, if a major political candidate such as Romney or Obama instructed supporters to lie about their preferences to the pollsters, at that point no one would have any idea what the polling figures meant and we would all be treated to the prospect of an old-fashioned election night where nobody knew before hand how things would turn out.

Oh yes, there would also be fewer ultra close elections to be settled by a few well-placed fraudulent votes because candidates would be more likely to get on the wrong side of a strong 55%,45% or even 60%, 40% public issue, allowing the winning candidates to reach office with a strong majority of the voters.

The cynical definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what he really believes. As in Obama’s “gaffe” that “the middle class is doing fine.” or “you didn’t build that.”

As for Romney’s “47%” gaffe, he told the truth. The Democrats are the Party of Parasites as confirmed by a Gallup Poll posted on Drudge this morning. The poll states that 67% of Democrats believe that “government should be doing more.”

A strong American foreign policy starts with having a firm grasp of our founding principles, and not merely agreeing with them but living them. Obama is a non-starter on all three points, and his policies built on nothing buy sand and gases. Romney cannot help but develop better policies from a solid foundation.

Romney needs to trudge right back into the arena with media, knowing that the animals will attack, as they are trained to do. And when they ask their inane questions, he should give it to them with both barrels. Let them know that their questions are idiotic and turn their questions around as questions to be asked of Obama. (“Did you jump the gun, Gov Romney.” “Why no. I thought the crisis deserved a forthright defense of American principles against barbarity. Ask the President why he was not so forthright in direct.”)

And then top it off by bringing it back around to the economy. (“Do you people know and report how high gasoline prices are these days? Well I do and so do the American people. And our feckless foreign policy in the Middle East during a time of historic change is contributing greatly to those price increases. A steady hand in Libya, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere might settle things. Obama hasn’t provided that. Moreover, he’s had four years in which he’s allowed things to run out of control with Iran. How much do you think that contributes to sticker shock at the pump here in the US? Why don’t you ask Obama these questions if you ever get him to hold an actual press conference?”)

An interesting piece, however, with respect to its relevance to the current campaign, an assumption is made that flies in the face of evidence to this point, namely, that Mr. Romney “deep down” has a vision. Mr. Romney appears to have no principles at all, and those are required for a vision. To be specific, I use the term ‘principle’ to describe an a priori belief or assumption of truth not susceptible to categorical analysis, as in “we hold these truths to be self-evident…”. I don’t believe Mr. Romney has ever described any belief he holds to be self-evident. He might do well to do so.

n November 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president of the United States. Carter took office two months later with a strong commitment to human rights. In 1977, a human rights bureau was created within the U.S. Department of State. Its first human rights reports were issued that year. Since then, reports have been produced every year; they now cover every country, including, for the first time in 1995, the United States itself.

To some, Carter’s belief in the universality of human rights was too idealistic. Nonetheless, despite ideological differences, the succeeding U.S. presidential administrations have made human rights a fundamental tenet of national policy.

It is hard to find a way to control events in the MENA, now that the dictators are gone. A stable non-agressive Muslim population needs a strong man at the top, or the populations resort to what we see today. It’s their cultural heritage.

Food price inflation will surely make the situation worse. And now we have the Muslim Brotherhood (founders of modern jihad) nominally in-charge in most of the failed, leaderless states. Mullahs with firepower and soon nukes in Iran’s case.

Firing before aiming used to be perjoratively described as “ready fire aim.”
Of course that’s exactly the capabilitiy we’ve designed into modern weaponry so as to loiter over the battle space and autominously destroy targets of opportunity.

In concept you’re right – but I take issue with a bit on the second page.

“He ought to have defended his original statement briefly, almost off-handedly. The administration began by apologizing for America. That is always the wrong response, Romney ought to have said. Our ambassador, and three other Americans, were murdered by Islamist thugs because our security was inadequate.”

Romney *did* defend his original statement – but in this case, unfortunately, some of his original statement didn’t bear defending. His comment that the Obama administration “apologized for America” was, in this case, patently incorrect. He assumed when he saw the statement from the embassy in Cairo that it represented some sort of administration response in Libya, which just wasn’t right.

Long story short – this was a “gaffe.” It wasn’t a campaign killer and I don’t think it’s going to hurt him much if at all – because while he wasn’t technically correct in what he said, the sentiments behind it were spot on. I know that I personally, while watching the riots and attacks on our embassies – on American soil! – was not feeling apologetic at all, and if I’d somehow been given a press conference I likely would have said something a lot ruder. At the same time, though, I think we need to hold any presidential candidate to a high standard, and accept that in the technical sense here he misspoke.

Now he’s got the “half of voters are dependent” statement to de-gaffify. The newsies are all over it, “fact checking” and otherwise responding negatively. Oh, the outrage of his outrageous words!

I actually agree with the substance of his statement. The Dems depend heavily on people who think Big Business is screwing them over and Big Government isn’t doing enough for them (or for somebody else). People with a victim mindset.

Anyone familiar with the TV show “Leverage?” In the intro to each episode, the main character explains, “The rich and powerful take what they want. We steal it back for you.” That could be the motto of the Democrat party and its adherents.

Other than Romney’s statement is essentially true (47% of wage earners pay no income tax), what are they going to “fact check”? When you look at the statement, “half the voters are dependent”, take into account how many of college age students that voted for the divider in chief could be considered dependent because of student loans? How many graduates that voted for the divider in chief are now living with mommy and daddy because they have no jobs (think occupy wall street). How many on welfare or other entitlements that voted for the divider in chief are truly dependent on the gub’mnt? Why should Romney apologize for making true statements?

The point that matters is not the number 47% or half. The only people who will actually be insulted by those comments (other than rich “progressives” who will put on the melodrama) are those that actually ARE in the “give me free stuff” camp. You can’t insult someone who is not motivated by that mentality by saying that. If you don’t have the victim mentality, how could you be insulted by it? The Democrats can’t attribute it to people who don’t have it already. Does anyone think that someone who was not already predisposed to Obama and does not have that mentality is going to run into his arms over this? Why?

“Anyone familiar with the TV show “Leverage?” In the intro to each episode, the main character explains, “The rich and powerful take what they want. We steal it back for you.” That could be the motto of the Democrat party and its adherents.”

I completely agree that this dialog is a very good summary of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, and, in fact, the core belief of ALL socialist parties.

However, that dialog seems to have been dropped for the current (fifth) season of the show. If I recall correctly, they used it in the second, third and fourth seasons. Perhaps someone finally noticed that it might not be too flattering to the Democratic Party and changed the opening credits?

When you have the press to clear the path and part the seas that is inertia. Its time to review what happens, what a racist dictator will do after the smoke clears. Romney supporters unlike hugobama cult members must walk leaning forward into the head winds before noon and vote! Freedom of the press;overrated.

Mitt Romney has such a vision. Hitherto, he has allowed it to be obscured by too diligent adherence to the false wisdom of focus groups. The path to victory is cleared by the candidate that has momentum. Inertia in the positive, irresistible sense is within Romney’s grasp. He needs but seize it.

Romney’s lukewarm supporters need to stop criticizing him. He’s walking a tightrope. 90% of the media is already against him. Attack Obama’s pathetic record – on both domestic and foreign policy.

Most people agree with Romney’s statement. Nobody wants to be singled out as paying no income tax. Everyone thinks they are paying more than the next guys. Romney’s also right–people who do not pay income tax don’t care about programs to lower taxes.

Also, nothing to de-gaffify about 47-49% of people dependent on government programs. It’s true–the numbers have been out for weeks that nearly 50% of Americans get some form of assistance. Romney’s point is that these people will vote for O no matter what.

Was he a bit harsh in saying that these 47-49% won’t go out and try to help themselves? Maybe, but it underscores the point. Nobody in America wants to be a freeloader–it’s not in our DNA as a culture. Nobody is going to go around saying “I’m part of the 47%.” Who in their right mind would be pround of this?

This was perfect red meat to fire up the base in a week where telling the truth about Egypt and Libya was interpreted as a gaffe, and where a brief convention bounce was interpreted as a momentum to victory.

There are three scenarios to this election: (1) Romney wins about 300-310 EV; (2) Romney wins about 280 EV; (3) O wins about 275 EV. Note that Romney wins 2/3, and there will be no O “landslide.” The election projection sites are very sensitive to recent poll movement, and they overestimate the D leaning polls. Just look at 2010–the sites didn’t see the R wave until early October. Nobody with any serious cred in the O campaign is predicting anything better than a squeaker–that should tell you something. They are counting on turnout to win this a la Bush in 2004–unfortunately the economic fundamentals are nowhere near 2004, and now even the foreign policy spin is suspect.

If your principles are clear, you don’t need focus groups and the abundance of caution they instill. You need a simple, clear, and (I’ll use the dread word again) manly policy for the country.

I am not as devout a Reaganite as some, but he had an amazing ability to just get the zinger out there and see his audience be bowled over into wild applause or maybe into stunned silence.

This is a gift that Romney hasn’t shown much evidence of.

For the record, the only driving principle “the Left” evinces is a drive for its own power. Whatever is spoken in the moment is only in service to individual ego and audience perception, not to principle.

Romney’s problem has always been that he is far more interested in getting elected than in his principles. At the first sign of trouble, he runs for the hills.

And since he has surrounded himself with ruling class republicans who have no principles at all, other than the principle of lining their own pockets, his convictions are as thin as a one-cell membrane.

Ifhe wasn’t a political ameoba, he would win in a landslide; but with his pitiful political instincts and his lose-at-all-costs advisors, it will take a near miracle for him to win by a milimeter.

At the time our country needs a Washington or Lincoln, we get a conflicted do-gooder addicted to the false entrails laid out by the his most powerful enemy…the msm.

And don’t forget to add anger to inertia. There is lots and lots of anger out there, and anger motivates people to get up and vote. Many Americans right now feel betrayed by Obama and are angry, especially when they see what terrible economic shape we’re in right now. Things are actually getting worse in this country, with the unemployment rate going down only because so many people have given up and there are fewer people looking for a job. If people are as angry today as they were back in 2010, this election won’t even be close and Romney will win. But if people totally give up, if they have all the fight taken out of them (a goal Obama is striving for), then Obama will win. Stay angry and vote. Romney will win if you do.

I think Romney could bolster his narrative by lamenting that there are many of these folks now reliant on govt. assistance were recently gainfully employed and would like nothing better than to return there and have a future.

Isn’t the point that the Cairo embassy statement was issued BEFORE there was any violence, so that attacking it as if it were a response to the violence was just plain wrong?

That said, Romney handled the gaffe, and it was a gaffe, very badly. He should, as you say, have passed over it unapologetically and moved on. Hell, isn’t that what the left does all the time? Where was the jeering from the MSM and the bien-pensants when Obama went to Cairo and talked about the “hajib” (“a court official, equivalent to a chamberlain, in the early Muslim world”, according to Wikipedia) when he meant the hijab, the headscarf? When he went to Austria and talked about his “Austrian”? His 57 states?
Imagine, just imagine, if GW Bush had said any of this.

Gallup and rasmussen are the most reliable polls. both show that obamas convention bounce has faded, and the race is back to a dead heat. Some hidden factors favor romney, like greater conservative intensity and likelhood to vote, and the tendency of undecuded to break for the challenger. But the swing states favor obama a bit, since romney must win the majority of them, while obama only needs to get lucky in a few. Personally I think the hidden pro romney factors will trump the polls on election day and carry him over the line, but it is possible that a few key swing state wins by obama could lead to a situation where romney wins the popular vote, while obama wins narrowly in enough swing states to win electorally.

The rumor is not true that former President Clinton just before his last election, took a secret trip to a maternity ward nursery in a Polish hospital. It turned out he just wanted to see what the latest Poles were saying.

Inertia is a fact of physics which can also apply to the result of polls as you point out. Perhaps what would help the Democratic party most, is for them to take a dose of physics to clean out their movement.

Obviously the MSM is getting down-and-dirty (as was anticipated) and doing their job as ObamaPravda. [Ben Stein labeled them the "Ministry of Truth".] We’ve had Mitt’s “apology gaffe” and “47% speech” within a week, deftly diverting attention from Dear Leader’s foreign policy disasters. It is nauseating & disgusting, but it is our current political reality and our biggest hurdle.

According to this article, last year (2011) job creation averaged 153,000 per month. “Official” 2011 unemployment rate averaged well over 8%, even exceeding 9% some months. In 2012 however, the article tells us that job creation has averaged 143,000 and now the jobless rate is miraculously dropped 0.3% in one month!! 143,000 does not even keep up with population increase yet the rate falls?? The article makes no mention of the real rate mover which is those folk so frustrated that they stop looking altogether and thus are considered non-persons and not unemployed. This Labor Dept report is so obviously political fiction. IMHO this article is very shoddy reportage which does not reflect well on WSJ.