This morning in west central Missouri:

Yeah, Paul Ryan. We were all laughing about that the other day.

Tomorrow we chose whether or not we want to return to politics of the gilded age or if we are committed to sustaining a democracy that makes middle class prosperity possible. A few thoughts from around and about on the nature of the choice:

Greg Sargent on the “post-truth” candidate:

If there is one constant to this campaign, it’s that Romney has startled many observers by operating from the basic premise that there is literally no set of boundaries he needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of his assertions, the transparency he provides about his fundraising and finances, and the specificity of his plans for the country. […]

But this goes well beyond Romney’s claims about Obama. It also concerns what he would do as president. Romney’s own campaign has proven unable to back up the promises in his 12 million jobs plan, even though it is the centerpiece of his governing agenda and his response to the most pressing problem facing the nation. …

Jonathan Cohn on President Obama’s record:

By any reasonable standard, no president since LBJ accomplished as much on domestic policy. And LBJ didn’t have to contend with the same political obstacles. The public wasn’t as skeptical of government. Conservatives didn’t have (quite) as much power to obstruct. Obama made plenty of mistakes, about policy and about tactics, but he also fought the good fight-and, more important, he did so when it was difficult. He didn’t let the auto industry die, even though the polls said it would be unpopular. He didn’t let Republicans roll him on food stamps on Medicaid, even though it would have helped him achieve an elusive spending deal. He didn’t drop health care reform-not in January, 2009, when advisers warned him it would be difficult; not in August, 2009, when the Tea Party protests exploded; and not in January, 2010, when Scott Brown’s election made enactment seem impossible.

Obama staked his political life on these gambits. With this election, progressives can help decide whether he made the right bet. And if they don’t? The damage to progressive causes could last a long time.

Nick Kristoff on Romney and the GOP war on women:

…  But whatever we call it, something real is going on here at home that would mark a major setback for American women – and the men who love them.

On these issues, Mitt Romney is no moderate. On the contrary, he is considerably more extreme than President George W. Bush was. …

Here’s the raw numbers from SurveyUSA, 10/28-11/3/2012, for KSDK-TV, KSHB-TV, KSPR-TV and KYTV-TV, 589 likely voters:

If the election for President were today, would you vote for … (choices rotated) Republican Mitt Romney? Democrat Barack Obama? Or one of the other candidates?

Mitt Romney (R) 50%

Barack Obama (D) 43%

Other 4%

Undecided 3%

Missouri will also elect a Governor. If the election for Governor were today, would you vote for … (choices rotated) Republican Dave Spence? Democrat Jay Nixon? Or Libertarian Jim Higgins?

Dave Spence (R) 39%

Jay Nixon (D) 48%

Jim Higgins (L) 5%

Undecided 8%

Missouri will also elect a United States Senator. If the election for US Senate were today, would you vote for … (choices rotated) Republican Todd Akin? Democrat Claire McCaskill? Or Libertarian Jonathan Dine?

Todd Akin (R) 36%

Claire McCaskill (D) 51%

Jonathan Dine (L) 8%

Undecided 5%

So let’s go into the details

The first detail worth noting is that on a survey with the sample of 38% Republicans and 31% Democrats, Claire McCaskill leads by 15 points. Yes, that is possible.

SurveyUSA finds McCaskill leading by 24% (55-31) with Independents. She wins 67% of Moderates and 20% of Conservatives (81% of the electorate). She wins 47% of landlines and 61% of non-landlines. SurveyUSA uses a system where “Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (28% of likely voters) were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, laptop or other electronic device”.

That landline number is 47-40 Claire. That’s important, compared to the landline-only Public Policy Polling results, where Claire leads 48-44. While the whole cellphone/landline debate hasn’t exactly produced any real consensus about the impact of being landline-only or being landline/cellphone/others. The SurveyUSA numbers move closer to the PPP numbers when you compare their numbers on the exact method uses to survey voters.

(for reference: SurveyUSA landline numbers for President were 55/40 Romney and Nixon 47/Spence 45)

Another difference between SurveyUSA and Public Policy is the partisan composition of their universes.

SurveyUSAs sample: 38R/31D/29I (as noted)

PPP’s (.pdf) sample: 36R/33D/32I

So Claire’s numbers are better on a +7R SurveyUSA than a +3R PPP? Yes, that’s possible.

Public Policy says that Claire and Akin are tied with Independents and that Akin wins 79% of Republicans, instead of the 67% that SurveyUSA put in the Akin column.

If you get wild and creative, you could combine the Public Policy sample, and SurveyUSA party numbers, then you get the following numbers:

President: Romney 48, Obama 46

Senator: Claire 54, Akin 35

Governor: Nixon 50, Spence 39

If you combine the SurveyUSA sample and Public Policy numbers, you get:

President: Romney 54, Obama 43

Senator: Claire 45, Akin 45

Governor: Nixon 50, Spence 46

So that sets up a fun little universe of possibilities if you mix your drinks. (Although the Romney v. Obama numbers from Mason-Dixon were the same as Blunt/Carnahan numbers (54/41). But that’s Mason-Dixon.)

If Claire McCaskill finishes ahead of Jay Nixon, the SurveyUSA method is going to be vindicated and/or we will have wound up in a world we didn’t expect to be in back on August 7th.

If she doesn’t do that well, then the universe continues undisturbed. Because it’s not like the varying success of non-landline methods has stopped Reuters/Ipsos, YouGov, and other online-friendly pollsters. Sometimes pollsters like SurveyUSA get a direct hit (McCain 48, Obama 48). Sometimes they miss slightly (Claire 51, Talent 42). Polling is sort of like a science.

The Presidential race in Missouri is pretty much two campaigns who only run ads in the parts of Missouri whose TV stations cover Iowa. But in all likelyhood, the better Obama does, the better the rest of the Democrats do in the election and the Missouri Democratic ticket probably runs slightly ahead of Obama.

In 2012, We live in a very surreal state. And in a few days, we’ll begin the process of forgetting Todd Akin, Dave Spence and Mitt Romney.

Left overnight on the windshield of a vehicle parked in a driveway in a residential neighborhood in a small town in west central Missouri.

This is what passes these days for a republican presidential campaign GOTV operation in Missouri.

Hi Friend,

I just wanted to let you know that some knucklehead vandalized your car by slapping an Obama sticker on it. The last thing you want is to be driving around all day looking like an idiot.

Take care,

A Good Samaritan

Gee, it’s not even an original idea:

LETTER: Reply to supermarket note-leaver (July 10, 2012)

Right wingnuts are doing this all over the country.

This is why Mitt Romney (r) will lose the election.

Instead of knocking on doors and engaging voters directly, or working a phone bank, or doing a literature drop a whole bunch of people have spent time implementing this and placing it on vehicles.

Remind me now, who’s the fucking idiot?

According to Talking Points Memo, Todd Akin’s got a super PAC – a real one – behind him and they’re ponying up $800,000 to place ads asking folks to vote for Akin because he’ll help tip Senate support to a potential Romney administration. Guess they haven’t seen the latest polls or else they wouldn’t be counting their chickens before they’re hatched. It doesn’t necessarily  look like there’s going to be a President Romney.

Be that as it may, the Now or Never Pac, which supported Sarah Steelman in the primary contest, is, to put it gently, kind of holding its metaphorical nose and sneering at old Todd as it tosses money in his direction:

Todd Akin may have not been our first choice for Republican nominee in the race to replace Claire McCaskill,” said Tyler Harber, the group’s spokesman. “But, Congressman Akin plays an important role in securing the Senate chamber.”

Respectable GOP contempt aside, it might be just what Akin needs. Missourians have definitely gone rampaging off the reservation into wild, red territory in the past couple of years – it’s hard to believe that Akin polls as high as he does without positing some sort of mass insanity. Add to that fact that no matter what his overall chances are, Romney is likely to take Missouri (although we’ve still got to work our tails off to get out the vote and gin up Obama’s share of the popular vote), and he could possibly pull Akin along with him. A last minute money boost with a “take your medicine for Romney and the GOP” message might be just what the GOP doctor ordered.

UPDATE:  The Missouri Republican Party wants to get in on the act. Per Politico, a “a stunning reversal by Texas Sen. John Cornyn and other Senate GOP leaders”:

Rep. Todd Akin and the Missouri Republican Party are launching a nearly $700,000 TV ad blitz in the closing days of his challenge to Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, but the source of the funds for the effort is unclear.

These are the first ads run by the Missouri GOP in conjunction with Akin’s campaign. Of the total, $386,000 will come from the Missouri GOP to pay for the ad run, with the remaining supplied by Akin’s committee.

Politico adds:

Democrats would undoubtedly pounce on such a move as a sign of Republican hypocrisy.

Yup. But, hey, who ever expected anything else? We watched the GOP batten down the hatches when Mourdock jumped overboard – and understood that they learned their lesson. Times are hard and nobody can afford scruples anymore.