The hurricane has muddied a lot of waters but, surprisingly, may have helped to clear those around the election. Post-Sandy, Intrade continues to have President Obama as almost a two-to-one favorite, 65 to 35, and Nate Silver has him as more than a three-to-one favorite, at 77 to 22. Not all of the models call it for Obama, though. A recent political science paper I looked at reviewed 12 different political prediction models, with the models split evenly down the middle, 6 each.

There is a fair bit of news today, which I will deal with in other posts, but I wanted to start with this one because I think it encapsulates a lot of the arguments that are being made at a national level.

As we move into the last days before the election, both sides have a lot to say on any and every issue that could vaguely be considered relevant. Ever smaller groups of voters are being targeted and pandered to. Today, it’s the “waitress moms,” per the front-page article in the New York Times (NYT), “Crucial Subset: Female Voters Still Deciding.” Obama continues to be the favorite, but at slowly eroding odds. And people are starting to realize that regardless of who wins the election, we are still going to have to deal with the same problems.

The headlines now are focusing more on what we will do, rather than who is going to be doing it. Even as the political uncertainty escalates—the presidential race is getting tighter, and “Number of Competitive Senate Races Rises” on page A6 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) points out that control of the Senate may be up for grabs as well—the economic focus is narrowing. Whoever wins, there is a set of problems that will have to be addressed, and those problems are becoming the focus.

“Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” — Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher is not usually associated with the middle of the road, but I have always liked the above quote. And, indeed, there is no question that the middle of the road may be the place to be in American politics.

Contrary to the old adage that politics stops at the water’s edge, last night’s presidential debate started there and headed straight into politics. The debate made the front page of the U.S. papers, unsurprisingly, but it was a bit of a surprise that there was no real consensus as to who won or lost. To the extent that both candidates had something to lose here, that makes sense. Romney wanted to avoid looking out of his depth or making some obvious misstatement, and Obama had to continue to seem tough and engaged. Both hit their marks, but neither seemed to go much beyond that.

Overall, the race has tightened quite a bit since before the first debate, and, nationally, it seems to be pretty close to a draw. Elections aren’t decided nationally, though, but in the Electoral College based on state results, and there the president still appears to have an edge. Nate Silver has a good article on page A10 of the New York Times (NYT)—“Cutting to the Chase: What Are the Odds?”—that addresses exactly that. Basically, per his analysis, Obama still has a two-thirds chance of winning, based largely on his slight but persistent polling advantages in some of the battleground states.

Well, because they vote, in this case. The big story today, which made the front pages of the major papers, was the discovery by both campaigns that women vote. The Financial Times (FT) led with “Fiery Obama seizes on debate to put Romney in a bind over female voters,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) led with a more sedate “Candidates Zero In on Women Voters,” and the New York Times (NYT) had a relatively stuffy “Rival Campaigns Intently Pursue Votes of Women.” The underlying story is the same, that women voters—a “minority” that actually constitutes 53 percent (a majority) of the electorate—are now up for grabs, as Romney has narrowed down what had been a large Obama lead to almost even in some polls. One more example of how politics is proving much more fluid than was commonly expected.

Now that the Romney rebound is in full swing, as predicted, I think we can expect to see more pro-Obama coverage in the next round of the horse race. This has already started, with Obama being reported as more energized on the trail, but it will intensify. It is worth noting that despite the Romney rebound, Obama is still ahead by almost two to one in the Nate Silver forecast and in the Intrade market, although both of those numbers are down from their highs.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this weekend to the European Union (EU) for the stabilizing role it has played in a continent that was wracked by war for most of the last century. The prize was also explicitly awarded as a warning for what could happen if the EU were to abandon the unifying process amid the current turmoil.

As I predicted, the papers love a good horse race and have been dying to start the Romney rebound story. It is now well under way, with “Romney dominates glum president” on page 2 of the Financial Times (FT), “Romney Presses Edge After Obama Stumbles” on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and “Campaign Gains a New Intensity in Debate’s Wake” on the front page of the New York Times (NYT). The consensus is that we now have a competitive race again, and reporters could not be happier.

I read the debate transcript again last night and realized something I didn’t mention enough yesterday—–Governor Romney of Massachusetts was back! The severe conservative of the Republican primaries did not show up; instead, we had a moderate, center-right, successful governor who embraced his own health-care reform plan, bragged of working with Democrats, stated categorically there would be no effective tax cut for the wealthy, and said that regulation was necessary and government had a role to play. One wonders what Paul Ryan thought of all that, not to mention all of the Republican primary voters.

I admit that I rarely watch speeches or debates live. I prefer to focus on the content, and reading the transcript allows me to do that without being affected by the atmospherics. But the real reason is that I usually end up yelling at the TV when either or both sides make misstatements.

We certainly are not free of the fiscal cliff, but it is at least comforting to know that our representatives are taking up the matter when they have a free minute. The New York Times (NYT) reports today on the front page, with “Senate Leaders See Path to Avert Mandatory Cuts,” that the Senate, the less irresponsible body, is “closing in on a path” to deal with the problem.

As well they should be. In addition to the 160 million people to be affected by the fiscal cliff mentioned in an article yesterday (“Payroll Tax Rise for 160 million is Likely in 2013,” NYT, p. A1), today the Financial Times (FT) has “Washington’s fiscal cliff to hit 90% of families, claims think tank” on page 3. That’s a lot of voters.