Another bad day for Mitt Romney in the papers. The race in Ohio, which, according to the polls, is increasingly in favor of Obama, hit the front pages of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) with “Electoral Drama Shifts to Ohio” and the Financial Times (FT) with “Romney’s options narrow as poll gaps widen.” Both articles highlight how critical Ohio is to the Republican’s national chances. The WSJ also has a useful map on page A6 that outlines exactly what states are in play, while the FT offers a look at the Ohio race in a special analysis piece on page 11, “Race for the rustbelt,” that highlights some of the state-specific issues in detail.

The race did not make the front page of the New York Times (NYT), but that paper did have a similar analysis by Nate Silver, whom I have recommended before, on page A19: “Romney’s Tough Path as He Trails in Ohio.” Silver provides an excellent breakdown of how past races have evolved and what that may mean for the race going forward. Worth reading.

As promised, the coverage on Romney has tried to turn more favorable, with “Three Reasons the 2012 Race Could Still Change” on page A6 in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Notably, the turn has not been completely rounded, with the article acknowledging the problems, but the intent is there. Expect to see more—horse races are how the media makes its money.

One potential game changer is the introduction of foreign policy as a central part of the race. “Race Focuses on Foreign Policy” made the front page of the WSJ, while the New York Times (NYT) had “Republican Team Attacks Obama on Foreign Policy” (p. A11). Apparently, Obama’s lead in this area is eroding, and it represents a potential opening for the Romney team. With everything that is happening, there is the potential for a disaster abroad, which could damage the Obama campaign. This is not a guaranteed win for Romney, though, as the Financial Times (FT) points out in “Romney’s China holdings criticized” (p. 8), reminding us that Romney has vulnerabilities of his own on the international front.

Honestly, when the lead headline in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is about the costs of “free” checking, and it runs right above a story about the Emmys, you know it is a slow day. We have the usual follow-up stories: Greece will probably be back in the headlines soon in a big way, but for now, France is trying to buy it some more time; in China, Bo Xilai’s police chief was sentenced to 15 years, and Japan warned China on the island conflict. And, of course, we have U.S. politics.

The U.S. political stories are the most interesting, in that they don’t focus on the elections but rather on the underlying issues. The New York Times (NYT) has two articles, “Liking It or Not, States Prepare for Health Law” on the front page and “What Do Teachers Deserve? In Idaho, Referendum May Offer Answer” on page A14.

The U.S. papers led with Romney stories again. The New York Times (NYT) has “Daunting Path Greets Romney Before Debates” and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has “Headwinds for Romney in Latest Poll Results,” both on the front page. The stories largely expand on points we discussed yesterday. The WSJ story talks about how Obama is pulling ahead in critical swing states—especially Iowa, Colorado, and Wisconsin—and is maintaining his lead in Ohio and Virginia. The NYT story expands on some of these points and adds a good graphic that lays out state-by-state comparisons.

The papers also highlight deeper issues with the campaign. The Financial Times (FT) has “Romney adviser quits campaign” (p. 5), which discusses that Tim Pawlenty—a former Republican candidate himself—has stepped down as cochair of the campaign and mentions a pointed nonendorsement by the Club for Growth, an antitax lobbying group. “Cash Low, Romney Striving to Find New Large Donors” (NYT, p. A12) expands on the financial issues facing the Romney campaign, which I discussed briefly yesterday, and “Obama, Allies Outspend GOP Rivals in August” (WSJ, p. A6) is consistent with Romney having financial issues as well.

The U.S. election (of course) was all over the papers. It is interesting to see the papers’ different perspectives: the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the right; the New York Times (NYT) on the left; and the British Financial Times (FT) relatively nonpartisan, but still a financial paper with all that implies. The FT linked a “Romney regroups” picture on the front page to “Romney tries to sooth donors” (p. 5), which states that Romney is trailing in nearly all of the swing states and is limiting public events in order to spend more time fund-raising.

The NYT story seems to confirm some of the FT’s key points, with “Romney Campaign Cautious with Ad Budget, Even in Key States” (p. A13). The article says that the campaign has been at a significant advertising disadvantage in key states due to limited financial resources, and that the imbalance would be even worse were it not for Super PAC spending on his behalf. The limitations are reported to be because much of what Romney has raised is earmarked for other uses, not as campaign funds. In fact, the article reports, the Obama campaign is actually raising more in usable campaign funds.

I am going to change the format of the Yesterday’s News posts. Rather than hitting every item in one long post, I am going to have individual posts for each major story, then a clean-up post if necessary for things that are worth mentioning but don’t warrant an individual post. Please let me know whether you like this format or prefer the previous one.

The major front-page story remains the Romney video I mentioned yesterday, the one in which he basically throws 47 percent of the U.S. population under the bus. As it turns out, he also calls Mideast peace impossible, among other comments, but let’s stay with the comment about the 47 percent, as that was the focus of most of today’s articles. The Financial Times (FT) had “Romney gaffe draws fire from all sides” on the front page, quoting several Republicans denouncing the comments, as well as “Romney video stirs media debate” on page 2; the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) front page had “Video Flap Jolts Campaign,” which talks about the Romney campaign’s attempt to turn the flap into a debate on the role of government; and the front page of the New York Times (NYT) had “Romney Stands Behind Message Caught on Video,” which is pretty self-explanatory.

Apart from China, which gets its own post today, the U.S. election led the headlines. The New York Times (NYT) started with “In Video Clip, Romney Calls 47% ‘Dependent’ and Feeling Entitled” on the front page, the Financial Times (FT) had “Romney refocuses amid poll gloom” on the front page and “Romney’s chances hit by mixed messages” farther back, and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had “Romney Video Surfaces Just as Campaign Vows Specifics” on page A4. For anyone who missed this, there is a video that shows Romney saying he will not even try for the votes of the 47% of the population who are dependent on government, as they would never vote for him. Romney acknowledged making the comments, which were, of course, seized on by the Democrats.

The tone of class conflict in the comments, though, is at odds with the general disappearance of Occupy Wall Street. The FT had a picture on the front page, “Keeping occupied: March marks movement’s anniversary,” and the NYT had “Occupy Wall Street: A Frenzy That Fizzled” on page B1. The WSJ, interestingly, had nothing. Think about it—when was the last time you thought about Occupy Wall Street? Romney’s comments, though much more blatant than others he has made, are also consistent with public remarks he has made, to no criticism. Bad politics, perhaps, but incorrect?

Unfortunately, the headline story today on front pages everywhere was the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three of his team in Libya. The Financial Times (FT) led with “Marines sent to Libya after envoy is killed in mob attack on US consulate,” the New York Times (NYT) had “Attack on US Site In Libya Kills Envoy; A Flash Point for Obama and Romney,” and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had “Libya Attack Sparks Crisis.” My thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims—there is not a lot else to say.

Economics got pushed to the back pages. The decision by the German court to approve Germany’s participation in the European rescue fund was on page 3 of the FT, with “Constitutional court refuse to block creation of rescue fund.” Meanwhile “In Victory for Merkel, German Court Ruling Favors European Bailout Fund” appeared on page 6 of the NYT, and “German Court Clears Rescue Fund” appeared on page 10 of the WSJ. This is a major victory for the euro, as not only was the rescue fund approved, but the language used made it more difficult for future challenges to be filed, and the conditions imposed were less than had been feared.

The U.S. jobs figures and their effect on the presidential race were a flash in the pan. Although they made it to the front pages over the weekend, with “Poor jobs data hit Obama campaign” in the Financial Times (FT) and “Jobs Data Weigh on Obama, Fed” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), they got bumped into nonexistence on Monday.

The big stories on Monday are the pending threats to the eurozone, the German Constitutional Court decision and Dutch elections on September 12, and the slowdown in China.

Two big stories today. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) made the front page of the New York Times (NYT) and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), but not the Financial Times (FT), and the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) bond-buying plan made all three.

The DNC coverage is fairly vanilla, with “Obama Presses Plan for US Resurgence” in the WSJ and “Obama Makes Case for Second Term” in the NYT. More interesting is the accompanying analysis. “Campaign Confident It Has Roads to Re-election,” on the front page of the WSJ, discusses the race from an Electoral College perspective, pointing out that there is a structural advantage for the Democrats and breaking down the swing states—pretty good article. The WSJ has another note-worthy analysis piece, “Jobs Gauge Carries Election Clout” (p. A2), that talks about the importance of today’s employment figures to the election; we will discuss jobs a bit later in this post. The FT did touch on the U.S. election indirectly with a front-page article, “Draghi helps out Obama campaign,” pointing out that a European financial collapse would definitely have a negative drag on his chances for reelection.