This election was close -- much closer than it should have been. For those of us committed to progressive causes, it was a reminder that we need to work even harder to ensure that future such races contain a message that is clear, relevant and compelling, connecting the dots between the issues we care about and fiscal responsibility. Our margin of victory should have been greater, and even in the election's wake, I find myself contemplating the cost of lost friendships, as well as our best path forward.

Just two weeks ago, after several intense political exchanges on Facebook, I awoke one morning, unable to sleep, and typed up a status update, a manifesto of sorts, which quickly took on a life of its own. In it I asked those voting for Romney to defriend me, given that much of what he advocated was a direct attack on me as an LGBT person, as well as the progressive causes in which I believe. The reaction to this was swift, emotional and tumultuous.

In the ensuing days my post was shared and spread, with over 128,000 Facebook "likes" at last count. People I hadn't heard from in years contacted me to debate the merits of said post, arguing passionately for and against it. I was defriended by a handful of acquaintances, only to find myself friended by hundreds more.

What most people failed to grasp, though, was that I wasn't personally planning to defriend anyone. Instead, I wanted others to take responsibility for their actions and views and defriend me. I felt it was important that people examine their vote, its real-world impact and take ownership. As I told those unwilling to defriend me, if Romney won and followed through on his pledge to restrict my rights, I wanted them to be reminded, each and every time they saw me post, that they'd had a direct hand in my undoing.

Though the article was provocative and created dialogue and led to many other writers offering variations or alternatives to my "defriend me" stance, some of that discussion brought up attitudes I hadn't anticipated. Despite clearly noting that I was voting for Obama because I care about the environment, the poor, veterans, the elderly, equality for women, the freedom of choice, health care as a right, our rights as a family with two gay dads, and the economy, one newspaper editorial reduced me to being a "single-issue" voter. While that may bring into question the writer's math skills, the larger point, that my progressive voting position was inherently less important than their fiscal one, is one that we need to actively counter.

Progressive causes should not break the bank. There is a way to achieve human rights in a fiscally responsible way, and yet our detractors have successfully labeled us as "tax-and-spend, bleeding-heart liberals," implying that our love for such causes compels us to open our wallet at every turn, regardless of cost. As made clear in this election, many people vote solely from their pocketbooks, and we have work to do in articulating a vision that not only upholds dignity and respect for all human life and the planet but communicates that such advances can actually help stimulate our economy and, in turn, heal our deficit. Being committed to social causes and financial security are not mutually exclusive; we must clarify how they can work together if we are to ensure a greater margin of victory in the future.

On a personal level, I'm struggling today with how to best move forward, given my friends who say that they support me but voted for policies and people who work to deny me my equality and the related tax benefits and protections conveyed under the law. I find myself questioning whom I want in my life and whom I don't.

Years ago I made the difficult decision to cut my parents out of my life, because of what I perceived as anti-gay behavior. I told myself then that my self-respect meant more, in the long haul, than their bigotry. Upon the birth of our children, I allowed that stance to soften, because I wanted my parents to be in our children's lives, and I wanted our kids to experience what it was like to have grandparents. The night before the election, however, I got a call from my mother telling me that she is joining a church this Sunday that I'd previously told her is anti-gay and preaches that homosexuality is a sin. The church is so well-known in our area that I actually once attempted to meet with the pastor in an attempt to discuss and expand his views, but I was denied.

My mother asked us to come to this new-member event to support her, and it pained me to tell her that I could not knowingly step into a church that views me as evil. She doesn't understand why we can't make a "one-time" exception to support her personally. And this strikes to the heart of my "Please Defriend Me" post. Both my mother and I are seeking support for who we are and what we believe, but our two stances are entirely contradictory. So what do we do?

Is it better to form tentative truces, knowing that we are not being supported? Is it better to take hard-line stances and draw clear boundaries to ensure that we retain our self-respect? And what effect does it have on us to have people in our lives who do not respect or support who we are at our very core?

I've tried for years to get my parents to expand their worldview, but I find that it will never change. I've tried mightily, during this election, to get others to see that their votes have real-world consequences, only to watch as they cast votes supporting my second-class status. In both cases, I am conflicted as to the best course forward.

It is one thing to educate and build bridges of understanding, but if my basic right to equality isn't respected, is that even a bridge I want to build???

This piece originally appeared on KerganEdwards-Stout.com and LGBTQ Nation.

Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic
Four more years. Four more years. Four more years … of what? That’s pretty much the way the political conversation went Tuesday night, at least based on what I saw on television. Just minutes after the networks declared President Obama the winner, and while Karl Rove was still ranting to Fox colleagues about Mitt Romney's Ohio numbers, pundits were already starting a debate over whether the election gave Obama a mandate—and, if so, what that mandate entailed.It’s a reasonable and important question. But before we get to it, let’s not...

I'm a Democrat, but here's some free advice to Republicans: starting right now, get off the "traditional marriage" bus as fast as you can. If today's election showed anything, it's that the demographic tide is turning against you. Big time.

Betting against basic human rights is never good for posterity, but it's no longer even good politics.

You already know the story: marriage equality passed by ballot in all three states that considered it (Maine, Maryland and Washington). And a constitutional amendment seeking to ban same sex marriage was narrowly rejected in Minnesota. True, the vote in those three states was close, but they were all wins just the same.

And more important, these votes deprive you of your strongest talking points: no longer can you blame "activist" judges or "rogue" legislators. And people have figured out that marriage equality laws don't infringe on religious liberty because such laws don't have to force clergy to perform a same-sex ceremony.

And there's more bad news for you: all the polls indicate that younger people strongly support marriage equality. Put another way, the electorate is going to be even more supportive of marriage equality four years from now. And even more four years after that. The writing is no longer just on the wall -- it's in the ballot box.

In short, We the People are going to continue to create a more perfect union and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, regardless of whom they happen to love.

So what should you do? One possibility is to double down on trying to deprive people of their basic human rights. That might be good for Democrats, but it's bad for our country. If you want to stay relevant, at least stop obsessively fighting marriage equality. I'm not asking you to start supporting this basic human right, but maybe at least stop actively opposing it.

When he signed the Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson allegedly remarked that, "We have lost the South for a generation." But at least he was on the right side of history. That's not the situation you now face. Marriage equality isn't just right, it's good politics too.

Gerald Seib, WSJ
The presidential campaign has wrapped up pretty much the way smart folks in both parties expected all along: It's close, with the outcome dependent more on whose partisans are loyal on Election Day than on how many voters changed their minds along the way.Enlarge ImageObama and Romney are scrambling for a win in states that will determine who claims the 270 Electoral College votes needed to take the White House.As Election 2012 draws near, never have so many millions of dollars been spent to move so few votes. So what factors determine who wins in such a race? Jerry Seib joins the News...

* Democrats say she would keep leader job if she chooses

* Pelosi says "no way on Earth" Romney will win

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Normally outspoken Nancy Pelosi is mum about her future.

She won't say if she will step aside as Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives if her party fails, as expected, to win back the chamber from Republicans in Tuesday's elections.

Pelosi recently fanned speculation about her future by scheduling House Democratic leadership elections later than many anticipated, after the Nov. 22 Thanksgiving Day holiday, rather than at the outset of the lame-duck session of the House that begins a week after the Nov. 6 election.

Several of her colleagues say Pelosi would retain her leadership job if she does choose to run.

Pelosi said in an interview with Reuters that she decided to have leadership elections later to give newly elected members more time to get acquainted before deciding on leaders and to let members focus on the election without distraction.

"There's feeling she wants to give herself more time to think about what she will do," one party aide said.

Pelosi said she is too busy to "waste a moment or an once of energy" on the hypothetical question.

"Right now, our focus is on one thing - winning," Pelosi said in a telephone interview between campaign events.

Besides she said, "Do you ask (Republican presidential nominee) Mitt Romney what he will do if he loses? ... There is no way on Earth that he's going to win."

Pelosi was speaker of the House - the first and only woman to hold the post - from 2007 until January 2011, when Republican John A. Boehner took over after a Republican sweep in the 2010 congressional elections.

"Organize, don't agonize. That's my motto," said Pelosi, 72, who was first elected to Congress from San Francisco 25 years ago.

In October, Pelosi had 65 fundraising and campaign events in eight states and the District of Columbia, her office said.

Pelosi dismisses predictions by most analysts that Democrats will fall far short of picking up the needed 25 seats to take the 435-member House.

"I've never been to one to go along with the experts," she said. "There are a lot of close races that can go either way."

Interviews with a dozen House Democrats found all saying it's unclear what Pelosi will do about the leadership job.

"I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't know. I doubt she's given it much thought," said Democratic Representative Gerald Connolly. "She's thinking about the here and now."

But all agreed that if Pelosi decides to run again for House Democratic leader, she would get the job.

"We get our inspiration from her aspiration to accomplish great things," said Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.

Democratic Representative George Miller said: "I don't know what she'll do. It's her decision. But I think it's unlikely she leaves. She is a warhorse."

"She gives all the signs that she intends to run again for leader," said one Democratic aide who asked not to be named. "She's working hard for members. She's out there raising money. She's totally engaged."

Critics say Pelosi should have followed the example of former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, who left leadership after his party lost the chamber in 2006.

A number of moderate Democrats had hoped Pelosi, a leading liberal, would do that after the 2010 election. But after days of private talks, she announced she would run and won easily.

Pelosi said her primary motivation - as it was when she first ran for Congress in 1987 - is to help children living in poverty, now one in five.

In 2010, Republicans made Pelosi the face of an unpopular Congress with more than $65 million in attack ads. In picking up 63 House seats to take the House, they blamed her for Obama's controversial U.S. healthcare overhaul.

Regardless how Tuesday's election turns out, Pelosi seems certain to remain in Congress for at least two more years. Having won a 13th term in 2010 with 80 percent of the vote, she's favored to easily capture a 14th on Tuesday.

When I appeared on ABC News' Nightline after the second presidential debate, reporter Jake Tapper asked me who was healthier -- Obama or Romney. I gave two responses, one of which was edited out. I first said that criteria for health are different for Presidents because at times they have to be ruthless. I also said, "Someone who repeatedly lies but thinks he's telling the truth is not healthy enough to be president." Which statement do you think was edited out?

This election is between a person who tied his dog to the car roof before driving hundreds of miles on a family vacation, and someone who would never think of doing that. It's a race between someone dedicated to taking care of himself versus someone who strives to take care of others. One man brilliantly provides his own safety net with money sequestered in Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts; the other provides social safety nets like FEMA, the Affordable Health Care Act, and auto industry rescues. Ultimately, the race is between someone who would happily tie 47% of Americans to the roof of his car and someone who wants those Americans to ride with him in his car.

Perhaps it's not Romney's fault that he is the way he is: he was raised in a religious culture that discourages close contact with non-believers, and later accumulated enough wealth to avoid rubbing elbows with average Americans. When asked by a reporter if he follows NASCAR, Romney tellingly said, "Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners." Recently he likened the post-Sandy cleanup to picking up a football field after a wild game. That is who he is, how he thinks. Without question, Mitt Romney is less emotionally qualified to be president than Barack Obama. That he is also intellectually less qualified is the subject for another column.

Looking at the close poll numbers, it seems hard for Americans to see that one man is less qualified to be president than the other. Would those of us who plan to vote for Romney put a dog on the roof of a family car? Those who plan to vote for President Obama recognize he cannot take care of all of us, but know he tries -- especially in times of disaster -- to do the right thing. It boils down again to a choice between someone who takes care of himself first and someone dedicated to taking care of others. Having a social compact and safety net is essential for the health of any economy, and that is something that Governor Romney does not seem to understand. He told Fox News, "I'm not worried about the poor; they have their safety net."

Candidate Romney promises big change but how do we know what that big change will be? For instance, from everything he's said, how do we know big change won't be from diplomacy to belligerence -- especially since 18 of his 24 foreign policy advisors worked for George W. Bush, and are the people who brought us Iraq? How do we know what "big change" means to someone isolated from 99% of the American people and their problems, both because of his wealth and his religious isolation? All we have to go on, beside his frequent policy pivots, is that he said he wants to return FEMA to the states (even if their infrastructure itself is flooded and non-functional), that he is barely concerned about "the rising oceans," and that he will overturn affordable health care for millions.

The dirty word in October -- before Sandy changed everything -- was class warfare, which seems to be a war of the 1% vs. the 99%. We already know that Romney dismissed 47% of Americans as being lazy, but what we don't know is that the unconscious source of class warfare stems from murderous sibling rivalry, going back to the Old Testament: Cain said, after slaying Abel, "I am not my brother's keeper."

Romney Republicans and Tea Party members are satisfied with that sentiment, but when Sandy came along we saw something completely different. We saw people helping one another, clearly being their brothers' keepers. Obama has pushed his deep faith that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers his entire adult life. Romney, however, says his brothers can find their own way, especially if government doesn't interfere -- and his sisters are second-class citizens who don't deserve equal pay for equal work or the right to make their own health decisions.

Interestingly, when push comes to shove, Americans are far more like Obama than Romney. And herein lies the paradox: many of us plan to vote for someone fundamentally different from ourselves, who doesn't know what we know. Sandy put this paradox into bold relief: scientists and prominent Americans like Al Gore and Ed Markey have been telling us for years about climate change. Most of us know what they say is true, so to label our reaction as denial is not specific enough. We suffer from a particular kind of denial -- denial of personal relevance.

The people of New Orleans understood the disaster that climate change can wreak; now, its tragic wake is publicly relevant to the entire Eastern Seaboard. New York's Mayor Bloomberg, stunned by the catastrophe that was Hurricane Sandy, endorsed President Obama. He wrote about the world he wants to leave to his children: "The two parties' nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.... One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics."

That so many good people -- especially women who should know better -- may end up voting for Romney reminds me of the play "Embedded" when a reporter in Iraq says of President Bush, "I know he's a liar; but I trust him."

This much is clear: Americans know that Romney doesn't understand our daily lives, and doesn't seem to care about our homes, our land or the people we love. The storm cloud that is Hurricane Romney is there for all to see. We'll know on Wednesday morning whether it made landfall.

The best case for President Obama's re-election is why not keep trying. Things could be worse had he not bailed out big business and shoved millions into the economy when collapse loomed. We still don't know if Obamacare will work, but it's here so why not find out.

Reelecting our President is a gamble on what he'll do next because he hasn't said what that'll be. All we know is what he's done so far, and, who knows, had he not been in office we might be in worse shape.

Mitt Romney has said even less about what he'd do in the White House, other than cut taxes, but he won't say how he'd pay for that without exploding the deficit.

Either way, after more than a billion dollars spent by the campaigns and their rich friends voters still have reason to wonder what either of these men would do in the next four years. It's a coin toss.

Romney: the Why Not Argument

Are you looking for a nonpartisan guide to the McMahon/Murphy US Senate race, one that contrasts candidate stands in a fair way? The Campus Election Engagement Project, a nonpartisan effort to get students involved in the election, has produced guides for the presidential race and key Senate races that institutions like colleges and other nonprofits can circulate to give their communities accurate information in a way that they can't with more partisan guides.

For more detailed info on any of Linda McMahon's positions, go to her Vote Smart page and click on the [....] to the right of issue you're interested in.

For more detailed info on any of Christopher Murphy's positions, go to his Vote Smart page and click on the [....] to the right of issue you're interested in.

Linda McMahon

Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? Pro-life
Afghanistan: Do you support the continuation of United States combat operations in Afghanistan? Yes
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? No
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on income above $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts on that bracket expire, as well as ending subsidies to oil companies? No
Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions? Yes
Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads? Unknown
Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? No
Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? Yes
Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Unknown
Education: Do you support increased federal aid to college students to help with the cost of their education? Unknown
Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? No
Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? Yes
Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? Unknown
Environment: Do you favor government support for alternative energy? No
Environment: Do you believe human activity is a major driving force in climate change? Skeptical
Guns: Do you support restrictions on the sale and possession of guns? No
Health Care: Should insurance companies be required to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? No
Health Care: Should individuals be required to purchase health insurance, with assistance from government subsidies for small businesses and low-income individuals, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? No
Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? Unknown
Immigration: Do you support the DREAM Act, which would allow children of illegal immigrants to stay in this country if they've graduated high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military? Unknown
Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? Unknown
Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? Unknown

Chris Murphy

Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? Pro-choice
Afghanistan: Do you support the continuation of United States combat operations in Afghanistan? No
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? Yes
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on income above $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts on that bracket expire, as well as ending subsidies to oil companies? Yes
Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions? No
Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads? Yes
Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? Yes
Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? Yes
Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Yes
Education: Do you support increased federal aid to college students to help with the cost of their education? Yes
Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? Yes
Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? Unknown
Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? Yes
Environment: Do you favor government support for alternative energy? Yes
Environment: Do you believe human activity is a major driving force in climate change? Yes
Guns: Do you support restrictions on the sale and possession of guns? Yes
Health Care: Should insurance companies be required to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Yes
Health Care: Should individuals be required to purchase health insurance, with assistance from government subsidies for small businesses and low-income individuals, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Yes
Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? No
Immigration: Do you support the DREAM Act, which would allow children of illegal immigrants to stay in this country if they've graduated high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military? Yes
Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? Yes
Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? No

Created by the Campus Election Engagement Project, a non-partisan effort to help college and university administrators, faculty, and staff get their students engaged in the election, which was founded by Paul Loeb. Candidate positions are drawn primarily from the Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, nonprofit organization providing factual, unbiased information on candidates, officials, issues, and legislation, with positions inferred from candidate stands and more detailed information available on the candidates' Issue Position pages. See also the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School's FactCheck.org, which lets you check the truth of candidate claims.

For a comprehensive guide to all races including state initiatives and local Congressional and legislative races, see Vote411.org, created by the League of Women Voters. You enter your address, or the address of your school, and click "Get Personalized Information on Candidates and Issues," and it will give you information provided by the respective campaigns on their stands, taking you first through national races, then statewide races, then local ones. You do have to scroll down to the bottom where it offers a comparison, because checking the box by a candidate won't automatically bring up their stands.

Did climate change have anything to do with Superstorm Sandy?

Climate change made Storm Sandy more intense. Climate change is responsible for dozens of deaths and billions of dollars of damage. And it is going to get worse.

Until this week, climate change has not received much attention but it is a very important issue for America for this election.

On November 6, voters get to choose how we, as a nation, deal with climate change in the future There are enormous differences in the way Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, and the Republican and Democratic Parties, deal with climate change and the greenhouse gases that unquestionably increased the devastation caused by hurricane Sandy... and will continue to cause havoc with our weather.

What, exactly, Bill, is the science on this?

Let's be clear on the science. Climate change does not cause hurricanes and storms like Sandy... but climate change makes them worse -- no question. The Scientific Journal, in an article on Tuesday, October 30, by senior editor Mark Fischetti says it clearly:

Climate change amps up... basic factors that contribute to big storms... The oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms, and the Earth's atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture which is drawn into storms, and is then dumped on us.

The basic mechanism of climate change is very, very simple... Gases in our atmosphere allow sunlight to pass through easily on the way down from space. But, after the light warms the Earth, these gases hold heat like glass in a greenhouse. That's why it's called "the greenhouse effect." It's what keeps our world warm enough for liquid water to flow and all of us living things to survive.

But in recent decades, it has become clear that we humans are causing the release of certain gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, into the atmosphere much faster than any time in the past tens of thousands of years. Burning carbon-based substances like oil, gas, and especially coal produces billions of tons of extra carbon dioxide each year. Methane gas from cows and pigs and other animals on our large farms ends up in the atmosphere as well, trapping more of the sun's energy as heat.

What's your sense of the differences between Gov. Romney, President Obama and the Republican and Democratic candidates for Senate and The House of Representatives on the issue of climate change? There is a very big difference between the candidates and the parties on this issue.

President Obama, Vice President Biden and the Democratic Party's position is consistent with what 90 percent of scientists say -- that humans significantly cause the world to warm and climates to change and that, in order to slow climate change and eventually control its effects, we must slow down and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane... and develop clean, alternate forms of energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and biomass.

Governor Romney, Congressman Ryan and the vast majority of those in the Republican Party, however, strongly disagree and they cite a small number of researchers who say that any warming and any climate change is a natural cyclical phenomenon that has been occurring on Earth for millions of years and that human activity is not a significant factor.

Gov. Romney and the Republicans are wrong. It's just not true. At the Republican Convention in Tampa, Gov. Romney re-stated his position by saying, "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family." The audience laughed.

At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, President Obama responded by saying, "More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They're a threat to our children's future."

Look at what has just happened to our Eastern seaboard. Every scientist that I respect says that this will not only continue, but will continue to get worse, unless we stop pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the environment.

America is going to vote in a few days. Is there evidence, beyond general statements, that Democrats are more serious about addressing and solving the problems of carbon emissions and climate change?

The Republicans, almost exclusively... the Republican members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, stand in the way of any attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions or to get away from our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

Two examples:

No. 1: Just last year the Republicans introduced The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 in the House and the Senate to stop the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, from making ANY regulations regarding greenhouse gases and climate change.

A hundred percent of Republicans voted for the bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, and 90 percent of Democrats against the bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

And there is a huge difference between the parties on whether we should spend taxpayer money to subsidize oil companies or companies that are developing the clean solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy of the future that doesn't contribute to climate change. For example, just a few months back, in March of this year, legislation came up that would give oil companies $4 billion, $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Gov. Romney and 96 percent of the Republicans in the Senate said "yes," while President Obama and 92 percent of the Democrats in the Senate said "No."

Democrats and Republicans really do have very different views on climate change and on the promotion of oil vs. clean energy in The United States.

What's your Call to Action to the American people between now and November 6?

If climate change and clean energy are important issues to you, you have to have your voice be heard and vote on November 6!

The 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes -- 537 out of a country of 300 million... and elections of senators and congressmen are often decided by hundreds or thousands of votes. I believe Sandy made it clear that climate change has to be a critical issue in this election and I want you, everyone, to get out and choose your America!

Are you looking for a nonpartisan guide to the Berkley/Heller US Senate race, one that contrasts candidate stands in a fair way? The Campus Election Engagement Project, a nonpartisan effort to get students involved in the election, has produced guides for the presidential race and key Senate races that institutions like colleges and other nonprofits can circulate to give their communities accurate information in a way that they can't with more partisan guides.

For more detailed info on any of Shelley Berkley's positions, go to her Vote Smart page and click on the [....] to the right of issue you're interested in.

For more detailed info on any of Dean Heller's positions, go to his Vote Smart page and click on the [....] to the right of issue you're interested in.

Shelley Berkley

Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? Pro-choice
Afghanistan: Do you support the continuation of the United States' combat operations in Afghanistan? No
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? No, except for removing wasteful spending
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on income above $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts on that bracket expire, and by eliminating oil company subsidies? Yes
Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions? No
Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads? Yes
Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? Yes
Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? Yes
Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Yes
Education: Do you support increased federal aid to college students to help with the cost of their education? Yes
Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? Yes
Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? Yes
Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? Yes
Environment: Do you favor government support for alternative energy? Yes
Environment: Do you believe human activity is a major driving force in climate change? Yes
Guns: Do you support restrictions on the sale and possession of guns? Supports some restrictions, opposes others
Health Care: Do you support keeping or repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Keep
Health Care: Should individuals be required to purchase health insurance, with assistance from government subsidies for small businesses and low-income individuals, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Yes
Health Care: Should insurance companies be required to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Yes
Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? No
Immigration: Do you support the DREAM Act, which would allow children of illegal immigrants to stay in this country if they've graduated high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military? Yes
Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? Yes
Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? No

Dean Heller

Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? Pro-life
Afghanistan: Do you support the continuation of the United States' combat operations in Afghanistan? No
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? Position ambiguous
Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on income above $250,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts on that bracket expire, and by eliminating oil company subsidies? No - Says might consider ending oil company subsidies but voted against this
Campaign Finance: Do you support the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions? Unknown position
Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which would require key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads? No
Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? No
Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? Yes
Economy: Do you support the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, which established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? No
Education: Do you support increased federal aid to college students to help with the cost of their education? No
Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? Unknown position
Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? Yes
Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? No
Environment: Do you favor government support for alternative energy? No
Environment: Do you believe human activity is a major driving force in climate change? Position unclear but has opposed climate change legislation
Guns: Do you support restrictions on the sale and possession of guns? No
Health Care: Do you support keeping or repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act? Repeal
Health Care: Should individuals be required to purchase health insurance, with assistance from government subsidies for small businesses and low-income individuals, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? No
Health Care: Should insurance companies be required to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act? No
Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? Yes
Immigration: Do you support the DREAM Act, which would allow children of illegal immigrants to stay in this country if they've graduated high school, have a clean legal record, and attend college or serve in the military? No
Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? No
Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? Has in the past, current position unclear

Created by the Campus Election Engagement Project, a non-partisan effort to help college and university administrators, faculty, and staff get their students engaged in the election, which was founded by Paul Loeb. Candidate positions are drawn primarily from the Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, nonprofit organization providing factual, unbiased information on candidates, officials, issues, and legislation, with positions inferred from candidate stands and more detailed information available on the candidates' Issue Position pages. See also the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School's FactCheck.org, which lets you check the truth of candidate claims.

For a comprehensive guide to all races including state initiatives and local Congressional and legislative races, see Vote411.org, created by the League of Women Voters. You enter your address, or the address of your school, and click "Get Personalized Information on Candidates and Issues," and it will give you information provided by the respective campaigns on their stands, taking you first through national races, then statewide races, then local ones. You do have to scroll down to the bottom where it offers a comparison, because checking the box by a candidate won't automatically bring up their stands.

Jeremy Peters, NYT
First there was quiet. Then came the “super PACs.” Now the candidate is on his way. In a striking last-minute shift, the Romney campaign has decided to invest its most precious resource — the candidate’s time — in a serious play to win Pennsylvania.Mr. Romney’s appearance here on Sunday could be a crafty political move to seriously undercut President Obama, or it could be a sign of desperation. Either way, his visit represents the biggest jolt yet in a state that was until recently largely ignored in the race for the White House.

In this week's election issue of Huffington, Dan Froomkin looks back four years to a time when "the world seemed full of possibilities -- particularly for the people who spend their careers trying to make the world a better place." Revisiting some of the idealists who believed Obama's 2008 election would inaugurate an era of sweeping progressive change, Froomkin finds them, as he puts it, "chastened by the reality that Obama is a politician, not an activist." He looks at their disappointments, from Obama's abandoned campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay to the way the president surrounded himself with financial insiders like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

Elsewhere in the issue, Ben Hallman drills down on the foreclosure crisis, one of Obama's signature failures. The numbers tell the story: only 2.3 million American families have received assistance to help them avoid foreclosure, far short of the president's 2009 promise to bring relief to between seven and nine million families. And Hallman shows the awful reality behind the abstract numbers: the "cruel irony" faced each month by families "paying an inflated mortgage on an investment sold to them as the soundest financial decision they could make." As he puts it: "Sometimes the toughest part of a journalist's job is tracking down a person whose experience properly illustrates a story. Finding people who feel they have been screwed by their mortgage company, though, is distressingly easy."

As we enter the last week of the campaign, Jon Ward puts the spotlight on the three debates that drew millions of TV viewers and gave new life to the floundering Romney campaign. We see just how much the Romney camp invested in the debates -- seizing the opportunity to move beyond their candidate's lackluster convention performance, clumsy response to the Benghazi attack, and disastrous "47 percent" remarks -- and just how much President Obama's poor performance in the first debate shook the members of his inner circle. Ward takes us inside the swarm of reporters confronting David Axelrod and David Plouffe, "the twin swamis of the Obama high command," and lets us feel their relief after the second debate "stanched the bleeding for Obama." Reflecting on past debates that swung elections -- including Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 and Reagan-Carter in 1980 -- Ward predicts that, should Mitt Romney unseat the president on Tuesday, the first 2012 debate will join their historic ranks.

This piece first appeared in our FREE weekly iPad magazine, Huffington, available in the iTunes App store.

Here’s another reason to be cautiously optimistic about the way the political winds are blowing: With Dems seemingly on track to hang on to the Senate — and with Obama’s electoral edge perhaps holding — the prospects are brightening for an overhaul of the filibuster.

John Koster, a Republican congressional candidate in Washington state, said Sunday that "the rape thing" is not a good enough reason for a woman to have an abortion, the Associated Press reported.

Asked at a campaign fundraiser whether he supports abortion rights in some situations, Koster replied that he only supports abortion in cases where a woman's life is in danger.

"Incest is so rare, I mean, it's so rare," he said. "But the rape thing-- you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept the child, gave it up for adoption, and she doesn't regret it."

He added, "On the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime -- how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

Listen to the audio of Koster's comments:

His Democratic opponent, Suzan DelBene, supports abortion rights. Her campaign criticized Koster for trivializing rape.

"Dismissing it as a 'thing' is an awfully casual way for him to talk about it, and I think it highlights how little he understands the ramifications and the seriousness of the issue. So that's very problematic," DelBene spokesperson Viet Shelton told TPM. "And the way he approaches the issue and the policy conclusions he comes to, it just highlights the serious problem we have when politicians are trying to dictate women's health care decisions."

In response to the controversy over his comments, Koster campaign manager Larry Stickney told the AP that Koster clearly takes rape seriously because he has strongly advocated cracking down on sex offenders.

Republican lawmakers and congressional candidates have made headlines several times over the past few months for their comments about rape and abortion. Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancy from rape is "something God intended," Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said victims of "legitimate rape" almost never become pregnant, and Rep. Tom Smith (R-Pa.) compared pregnancy as a result of rape to "having a baby out of wedlock."

Joan Walsh, Salon
Weirdly, Mitt Romney was counting on a “wave” of anti-Obama voters to carry him to victory Nov. 6. But the waves have all gone President Obama’s way, and I’m not making a tasteless Sandy joke. With reliable polls in Ohio and Wisconsin Wednesday showing Obama with solid leads there, Romney has almost no path to victory on Tuesday. Polls today also showed him holding smaller leads in the swing states of Virginia, Florida and Nevada, and tied in North Carolina.It’s still theoretically possible that lingering post-Sandy problems – and...

Two former members of the Bush administration may have inadvertently acted as a buffer for the president, driving a wedge between the attacks from Republicans and the administration's efforts in Benghazi.

With the elections less than nine days away, the Republicans, conservative blogs and television shows have hammered the president over the events that took place in Benghazi, which led to four dead Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, hoping to damage the president's reputation.

Despite campaigning for former Gov. Mitt Romney, Condoleezza Rice has made the decision to not join the Republicans in their fervent criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the attacks in Benghazi, which has brought a storm of criticism the president's way.

In an interview with Fox's Greta Van Susteran, Rice said, "We don't have all the pieces and I think it's easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here. It's probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work."

General Colin Powell, a retired four-star general, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff under former President George H.W. Bush and national security advisor under President Ronald Reagan, said Romney's foreign policy views are inconsistent. He told CBS that Romney's foreign policy is like a "moving target."

The endorsements from Powell and Rice may be enough to help legitimize Obama and his handling of foreign affairs because of their strong track record among Republicans and the military.

Since the Obama administration has been met with such fierce opposition in relation to this event, a flood of information has come forth, but none of which makes the situation more clear.

Recently, a story from Fox News said CIA operatives were denied additional help during the Benghazi attack.

An unnamed source close to Fox News said the CIA was told multiple times to "stand down," but CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied the assertion that the CIA's requests for support were not met.

According to Egyptian security officials, a man who is a suspect in the Libyan attacks was killed in Cairo. The Egyptian official spoke under anonymity and said the details of the suspect's involvement in the Benghazi attacks are under investigation.

Are you worried that Frankenstorm will restrict your access to up-to-date polling numbers? Do you know more about the state of the race in places you've never been to, but haven't decided what to do for Hallowe'en yet? Then you have come to the right place! With one week to go before Election Day dawns, the race for president is about as tight as it can get, so let's get right to it.

First, a look at the overall state of the electoral math:

[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

Things stayed pretty close to where they were last week (note: due to the final debate, last week's column ran on Tuesday, so you may have missed it). Barack Obama's overall electoral vote ("EV") total spiked upwards, then fell back, and finished at 280 EV, one down from where he started. Mitt Romney's total spiked way down, but then partially recovered by week's end, to close at 235 EV, down from 244 EV. The number of states perfectly tied stayed high, going from 13 EV to 34 EV, before falling back to 23 EV at the end. Percentage-wise, this left Obama at 52.0 percent of the overall Electoral College, while Romney fell back to 43.7 percent.

Eleven states moved around in the categories this week, which was mostly bad (but not terrible) news for Obama. Obama lost ground, but held onto, two states (Minnesota and New Mexico), while losing two to "Tied" (Iowa and New Hampshire). The only good news for Obama was flipping Colorado from Romney, but Obama only holds a thin lead here which could easily change back. Mitt Romney got good news in two of his states, and bad news in one, as Arizona and Tennessee firmed up and Montana weakened. Tennessee hadn't had a poll in a very long time, though, so this probably doesn't represent any real movement, just a reality that had been there all along. Still, it's good news for Romney who maintained his hold on all three states. Three states moved, but then moved back, leaving them where they started. Wisconsin firmed up for Obama, but then weakened in a subsequent poll; North Carolina slipped from Romney into a tie, but then drifted back; and Virginia briefly went from Tied to Obama, but then fell back again.

Romney's dip, in the chart above, was due to losing North Carolina and Colorado. His partial recovery was picking North Carolina back up again. Obama gained ground by briefly holding Virginia. When he lost it back to Tied, he also lost Iowa, but gained Colorado to partially offset the loss. At the very end, he lost New Hampshire to Tied. There are three states currently in the Tied category, Iowa, Virginia, and New Hampshire, for a total of 23 EV.

Let's take a closer look at the movement for each candidate, starting with Mitt Romney:

[Definition of terms: "Strong" means 10% or better in the polls,
"Weak" means 5% or better, and "Barely" is under five percent.]

Mitt Romney showed some strengthening among his base "red" states, but actually lost ground overall this week. Overall, he ended the week down by nine EV due to the loss of Colorado to Obama. Romney had some movement in his "Strong" numbers, as first he lost Montana and then gained Tennessee. This was a net gain for Romney, from 134 EV to 142 EV. Romney's "Weak" numbers also managed to grow over the week, from 46 EV all the way up to 60 EV before falling back to 49 EV. This pushed Romney's critical "Strong Plus Weak" line up to 191 EV, which he hasn't seen since the beginning of this month. Firming up Arizona added the 11 EV Romney gained here over last week.

This puts Romney in good (but not great) shape with one week to go. He has made up the ground he lost among his base over the month, but he still has never broken the barrier of polling ahead in states which add up to 250 EV, much less the 270 EV he needs to win.

Which brings us to how Obama's doing:

Overall, Obama stayed about the same, but what must be worrying Team Obama right now is that he seems to be weakening in some of his base "blue" states. That's a bad trend, one week out. For the week, Obama only lost one EV from his total. Obama, however, lost 15 EV from his Strong category, with the weakening of New Mexico and Minnesota. This brought his Strong number down from 210 EV to 195 EV at week's end. Obama was up briefly in Weak with the addition of Wisconsin, until it slipped back to "Barely." At the end, Minnesota also slipped into Barely, completing a one-week slide down from Strong Obama, which, again must be a little disconcerting for Obama fans. As a result, Obama's Strong Plus Weak ended down 10 EV this week to close out at 227 EV. The one bit of good news overall for Obama was capturing Colorado's 9 EV, but he's got a pretty tenuous hold on the state.

This all puts Obama in better shape than Romney, but neither candidate's position could be called "commanding" at this point. Four years ago, when I wrote my penultimate "Electoral Math" column, I subtitled it "Obama Has Closed The Deal." Needless to say, that wasn't a viable option this time around. While I'm usually skeptical of all the "it's going to be a close close race" nonsense from the mainstream media, this time around they may actually be right. The race is one whale of a lot tighter than it was in 2008 at this point, to put it another way.

 

My Picks

Onward to the part of the program where the deciding factor can be not just a poll number, but how my gut feels about a particular state. As always, the categories here are different to avoid confusion with the hard data above. Full lists of states in all my categories are provided at the end, as well.

 

Likely States -- Obama

Safe Obama (18 states, 227 EV)
One state moves into "Safe Obama" this week, while another moves out. Minnesota can't really be seen as Safe anymore, so it's going to move down a bit. But my gut tells me that the race is pretty much in the bag for Obama in Pennsylvania, so I'm going to consider it Safe for now. Because Pennsylvania has twice Minnesota's 10 EV, Obama gains a bit here this week.

Probable Obama (3 states, 26 EV)
While Pennsylvania moves up from "Probable Obama," Minnesota swaps places with it. While Obama has gotten some bad polling of late in Minnesota, I still feel pretty good about his chances there, and so can't really see the state as a tossup yet. Nevada and Wisconsin both stay stable here this week, because I'm still feeling optimistic about both of them.

 

Likely States -- Romney

Safe Romney (21 states, 170 EV)
While the polling doesn't actually merit it, I'm still going to move Georgia up to Safe Romney this week, as I think Romney's going to win in a cakewalk here.

Probable Romney (2 states, 21 EV)
While Georgia moves up to Safe, Arizona moves up to take its place, as it firms up for Romney. Missouri stays put.

 

Tossup States

Lean Obama (3 states, 31 EV)
Two states change places here this week, as Iowa moves down to "Too Close To Call" while Colorado moves up from the same category. This is truly where gut feelings come into play, I should mention. New Hampshire and Ohio stay as "Lean Obama" this week, even though a case could be made that either could be considered a true tossup. I feel good about Obama's chances in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Ohio. I feel less good about his chances in Iowa. We're into tossing darts at the wall here, folks.

Lean Romney (1 state, 15 EV)
Arizona moved up to Probable Romney from this category this week, but I'm moving Florida down to Too Close To Call. I know, Florida has looked like Romney territory all month, but the polls have stayed incredibly tight, so perhaps Obama's response to a hurricane might help him with Floridians, who knows? At least until next week, we're moving Florida to tossup status. North Carolina stays as Lean Romney, although a case could be made that it belongs in Too Close To Call as well.

Too Close To Call (3 states, 48 EV)
Florida moves down from Lean Romney, and Iowa moves down from Lean Obama. To round out Too Close To Call, Virginia stays razor-close, with no clear lead shown by either candidate.

 

Final Tally

This is the last time we're going to provide such an exhaustive look at the polling, we should mention, because next Monday we're going to just dive in and make our predictions for how the 2012 election is going to happen, state by state.

The hard polling numbers show Obama maintaining a lead, but not an overwhelming one. Obama holds 280 EV to Romney's 235 EV, a lead of 45 EV. This is up from last week, when Obama only led Romney by 37 EV. But in Strong Plus Weak, Obama's 227 EV over Romney's 191 EV shows only a 36 EV lead, which is down from last week's 57 EV, and little more than half of Obama's lead from two weeks ago of 67 EV.

The race tightens. Obama, in my estimation, has 21 states with 253 EV comfortably in his column. Mitt Romney has secured 23 states for 191 EV. This shows a healthier lead of 62 EV for Obama, which is down from last week's 73 EV lead.

Still, Obama retains the edge. From the 94 EV in the seven tossup states, Obama only needs 17 EV to be re-inaugurated. Mitt Romney needs 79 EV to win. If Obama wins either Florida or Ohio, the election may essentially be over at that point. Even if Obama loses both large states, he still has multiple paths to victory. Romney pretty much has only one path: a last-minute surge which breaks all the undecideds in almost all of the tossup states his way. The problem for Obama is, this is now looking quite possible instead of ludicrously unlikely.

Frankenstorm Sandy may impact voters' feelings at the last minute, but the real sword of Damocles hanging over the White House right now is this Friday's release of the October unemployment figures. If the numbers are bad, it could give Romney the last-second momentum he needs. If the numbers are good, Obama could waltz to victory. Stay tuned....

 

[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state. This column series relies on Electoral-Vote.com for state polling data, as we did four years ago.)

Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 253 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 18 States -- 227 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)

Probable States -- 3 States -- 26 Electoral Votes
Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10)

 

Mitt Romney Likely Easy Wins -- 23 States -- 191 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 21 States -- 170 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 2 States -- 21 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Missouri (10)

 

Tossup States -- 7 States -- 94 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Obama -- 3 States -- 31 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18)

Tossup States Leaning Romney -- 1 State -- 15 Electoral Votes
North Carolina (15)

Too Close To Call -- 3 States -- 48 Electoral Votes
Florida (29), Iowa (6), Virginia (13)

 

No polling data since August:
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of September, with the dates of their last poll)

South Carolina (1/13), Alabama (8/16), Vermont (8/21), West Virginia (8/25)

No polling data at all, yet:
(States which have not been polled so far this year)

Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming

 

Electoral Math Column Series Archive:

[Oct 23] [Oct 15] [Oct 08] [Sep 26] [Sep 17] [Aug 22] [Aug 8] [Jul 18] [Jun 25]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

A really big storm is heading New York's way. It's going to be the confluence of a garden-variety hurricane (these days, "garden-variety" means unseasonable and oversized) with two other unseasonably large storms that will happen to end up in the same place at the same time, from different directions. The results, by all accounts, are likely to be spectacular.

Kids naturally like big storms, as well as disruptions to daily life. There's the whole hustle and bustle of stocking up on water and candles, and maybe the boarding up of windows so your house feels like a fort. You might get to take off school, and your parents might stay home -- such opportunities can be rare what with middle-class leisure time at an all-time low (two thirds what it was before Reagan!). Once the storm comes, it can be pretty fun to watch. Plus there's the excitement of unpredictable minor dangers -- flooding, falling trees, stuff flying off buildings.

Unfortunately, some things can get in the way of the fun, excitement, and group bonding experiences. So here are a few guidelines to making sure you and your parents enjoy the big storm, as well as the many more likely to be coming your way by the time you're grown up.

1. Don't listen to anything that connects this storm to anything else

Unfortunately, as soon as a monster storm comes heading our way, you'll hear people talk about "climate change." That can totally ruin the fun, because climate change also means: crop failures, droughts, rising food prices, famines, conflicts, and insect-borne diseases migrating to where there's no resistance. Those things in turn mean the deaths of 1000 children like you every day, and warnings from the UN that last summer's crazy temperature records could end up hurting tens of millions of people in the coming months. So don't listen to the UN, or to scientists, or to anything other than the weather channel, network television, or the pronouncements of the president and his challenger. Knowing that the cool storm you're in the midst of is part of a pattern of global mass murder can be a big bummer.

2. Make sure not to live in Africa, East Asia, South America, etc.

If you're reading this, chances are you live in the US or maybe Europe. Stay put. You'll be fine -- probably (see below). Certainly don't consider going to live in Bangladesh, or the middle of Africa, or any number of other extremely endangered places that also happen to be the world's poorest. Your parents weren't thinking of getting a second home in Bangladesh? Great! The mosquitos are terrible anyhow.

3. Ask your parents to sell their home and start renting

Again, if you're in the US or Europe, you're probably ok. There probably won't be any life-wrecking catastrophes in the years before you're kicked out of the coop. But probably isn't certainly. The fact is, scientists just don't know. For example, the loss of Arctic sea ice is completely outstripping the worst-case predictions of scientists' climate models. Also, scientists have only catalogued some of the ways our unprecedentedly carbon-rich atmosphere could react to the situation, mostly based on samples of ice from hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. So it's safest to be ready to move at a moment's notice.

These are a few ways to keep cheerful about your Hurricane Sandy experience. Even if your parents tell you to stay away from the windows, go ahead and take a peek. This thing won't hurt you. Probably. Yet.

Note to parents: if you're concerned about weather-related damage to your progeny, please consider helping us with our new film and "Action Switchboard" at www.theyesmenarerevolting.com.

BY STEVE PEOPLES, ASSOCIATED PRESS

FINDLAY, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney has canceled plans to campaign in New Hampshire this week because of the storm bearing down on the East Coast.

It's the second major schedule change for the Republican presidential candidate with the election just nine days away. Romney campaigned in Ohio on Sunday instead of Virginia as planned.

He told supporters at the University of Findlay that, quote, "our thoughts and prayers are with people who will find themselves in harm's way."

President Barack Obama has also changed his campaign schedule for the coming days. The election is Nov. 6 and early voting is already underway in several states.

Romney was supposed to campaign in New Hampshire on Tuesday. He last held an event there on Sept. 7.

The campaign also canceled a Monday appearance set for Romney's wife, Ann.

Ezra Klein, Washington Post
According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 55 percent of registered voters say the outcome of this election will make “a great deal of difference” in their lives. That’s a 10 percent increase over the 2004 election, and more than double the percentage of voters who felt that way about the elections of 1996 or 1992. The stakes this year are higher — and most voters know it.

David Stern, the NBA commissioner, weighed in recently on President Barack Obama's basketball game.

And he wasn't too complementary.

"He's not that good." Stern told Reuters TV's Robert Wolf. "He's a lefty -- he goes the same way every time."

For Stern, who calls himself "a loyal Democrat," it's not political.

"I'm a passionate Democrat," Stern told Wolf. "He's not as good as he thinks he is."

President Obama plays basketball regularly, and, according to a recent profile in Vanity Fair, often with players who played in college or were on professional teams overseas.

Michael Lewis describes a basketball game with the president in Vanity Fair:

Obama was 20 or more years older than most of [the other players], and probably not as physically gifted, though it was hard to say because of the age differences. No one held back, no one deferred. Guys on his team dribbled past him and ignored the fact he was wide open. When he drives through the streets, crowds part, but when he drives to the basket large, hostile men slide over to cut him off. It’s revealing that he would seek out a game like this but even more that others would give it to him: no one watching would have been able to guess which guy was president.

Stern announced earlier this week that after 30 years, he will be retiring as the commissioner of the NBA in February 2014. Adam Silver, the league's Deputy Commissioner, will take his place.

Read Lewis' entire profile of President Obama at Vanity Fair, and catch the full interview with David Stern on Reuters TV on October 28.

The run-up to an election is a trying time for friendships, especially for LGBT people who feel personally attacked when their friends vote for anti-equality candidates. Some of us, like HuffPost blogger Kergan Edwards-Stout, find ourselves saying "Please Defriend Me." This open letter to a friend tries to find another way.

Dear Travis,

I'm writing because I've been told you're leaning toward Romney this year, and I'd like to talk you out of that. Now, don't be offended, please. In fact, take it as a sign of my respect for your intellect and your open-mindedness. If I didn't respect you, I wouldn't even try.

Why should you listen to me? Because I know you.

I remember when you used to be a Democrat, along with much of your family and mine. Of course, circumstances have changed since then, in your life and in the country. You've never been a big fan of Obama, and lately you've been around some people with strong opinions against him, including a little bit of talk radio. Rush Limbaugh is potent, and your new friends persuasive, and I don't know if I can compete in a short letter, but I have three things going for me that they don't.

First, in 20 years, I've never lied to you; Rush has. Second, I love you and your family and have your best interests at heart more than your new friends or some stranger on the radio possibly could. And third, I'm less biased than they are.

Yep. You heard me. Less biased.

I know you think I'm completely swayed by the Democrats because I'm gay, and it's true that the president has been much better on gay issues than any president in history, while his challenger has promised to be the exact opposite, but here's a little secret about gays and lesbians that you won't hear on talk radio:

Gays are among the most conservative people you'll ever meet.

Think about all the institutions that conservatives claim to care about: marriage, church, the military. Those same institutions are cherished by many gays and lesbians. In fact, despite big talk from conservative leaders, many of them avoid church, dodge military service, and get divorce after divorce, trying like hell to stay out of those institutions, while gays and lesbians work, plead and even die to try to get in.

You know that there was a time in my life when I would have given anything to be able to openly serve in the Army or at a pulpit, and you know that my relationship has lasted longer than most of your conservative friends' marriages.

Gay or no, I live in this country, and its fate is mine.

Being able to serve overseas doesn't mean much when terrorists come to our shores. Being able to get married doesn't mean much if no one can afford to come to the wedding. Having workplace protections doesn't mean much if there are no jobs. So I may weigh gay issues more strongly in my decision making, but before I cast a vote, I look at the whole candidate, just like you do, and make my decision based on his or her values, policies and character, just like you do.

You've known me long enough to know that I've voted Independent and Republican in the past. And I've known you long enough to know what you value: God, work and basic human kindness. If you were to vote for a man who reflected those values, even if his policies hurt me personally, it would hurt, but I could at least respect it.But do you really think Mitt Romney is that man? And are you really sure Obama isn't?

Let's take a look at where the candidates stand on your values:

God, the Democratic Party Platform and Money

Obama himself is a strong believer in God. He's talked about his Christian faith many, many times -- more times, in fact, than Romney has. I know that talk is cheap, but we can't see a man's heart. If he says he's a believer, then we must take him at his word, and at his policies, just like we've done for every other president.

Despite what you may have heard, God is in the Democratic Party Platform. Yes, some Democrats have objected, but can't you see why they might?

• In the name of God, Pat Robertson blamed you and your family for hurricanes in Louisiana.
• In the name of God, churches have hidden pedophiles from the law.
• In the name of God, Mormons have historically prayed an "Oath of Vengeance," which asks God to enact blood retribution on the United States because the founders of the Mormon religion were killed by U.S. citizens.

The people who claim to be so godly want to cover their internal corruption by polishing the outside, like when Romney talks about things like keeping God on our currency.

No one is trying to take God off the currency, by the way, but is this really something that God cares about? God is God. If God wants to be on the money, He'll damn well be on the money. God doesn't need our help.

But God's children do. In fact, Jesus made clear what would prove our devotion, and it had nothing to do with putting the word "God" on a piece of paper. Every time the disciples tried to show their devotion by puffing up their chests the way people do, Jesus asked for something a lot harder: "If you love me, feed my sheep," and, "What you've done to the least of my brethren, you have done to me."

Work, Welfare and Clinton

This brings me to your problem with Obama and the work requirement for welfare. You've been told that Obama has increased the size of the welfare rolls and pulled back on Clinton's Welfare-to-Work requirements.

It's true that there are more people on welfare, but Obama inherited an economy that was losing 800,000 jobs per month! Would you really suggest letting those people starve? In some states the Clinton-introduced work requirement for welfare has been temporarily relaxed during the economic recovery, but the work requirement is still present, as Clinton himself explained at the Democratic National Convention.

I know there are many who believe that taking care of the poor should be the church's job, not government's, but if churches really believed that, wouldn't they try to be better at it? For the truly poor, these days, there aren't many alternatives but government help.

Your own church understands that the government plays a role. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has roundly criticized the Romney-Ryan budget for its disastrous consequences for the poor. Even Pope Benedict has called for an end to the type of greedy capitalism that the anti-regulation, trickle-down economics of the Romney-Ryan policies represent.

In light of the Romney-Ryan budget's failure to even try to provide basic safety for the poor, while providing tax cuts for the super-rich, all of that talk about God is revealed as empty piety.

They're so worried about keeping God on the money because they know they've stopped keeping God in their money.

Basic Human Kindness

Finally, let's talk about the third thing you value: plain old human decency. I saved this for last because, sadly, this is where you differ most from the people you're thinking of supporting.

A couple of weeks ago, Paul Ryan met with a group of leading right-wing religious types and assured them that the Romney administration would try to enact their agenda. These people have repeatedly called people like me pedophiles, Nazis and every other horrible thing. They've gone to other countries and supported the death penalty for gays. They've openly advocated making my relationship illegal. These are hateful, hateful people, and the Romney-Ryan ticket owes them.

And it's not just about gays. You live in Louisiana. I know you've heard all the race-based Obama hatred. You know the jokes. Stop and think about that for a minute. You know where much of Romney's support in Louisiana comes from.

I'm not saying Romney is racist, or that everyone who supports him is a racist, but I am saying much of his support is racially motivated, and you know it. Furthermore, much of his support comes from people who want me criminalized or dead. They've had his ear, and they've already heard enough promises from him to know they will have power in his administration.

You are no racist or homophobe. You're not like the people who've gone out of their way to misinform you. But do you trust them? Do you want to cast your ballot with them? Do you really want to reward their behavior with your support?

Has Mitt Romney proven he shares your values in any meaningful way?

Not once has he exhibited any godly concern for regular hardworking people like you and me. In fact, with his rich donor friends, he dismissed us outright. Not once has he stood up to the hateful elements of his party, and he's had many chances. In fact, in his treatment of cops, of workers, of the family dog, of the U.S. tax code, he's proven he can be pretty heartless himself.

Now there are a lot of friendships being lost over this election, both on Facebook and in person. A lot of gays and lesbians, like the man who wrote this article, are taking it very personally that people are voting in ways that specifically harm us, and rightly so. It is personal, and maybe he has enough friends already. I don't. And I know it's hard to get good information sometimes, especially when you're surrounded by bad information, so I'll forgive the personal slight. I'd love to see you vote for Obama, but no matter what happens in November, I want you to know that you're still family to me, and still my friend.

However, If you're going to vote for a man who has promised to roll back my rights, then it's a kick to my stomach if that man doesn't at least share your values enough to deserve that vote.

And no matter what you've been told, Mitt Romney just plain doesn't. Better that you didn't vote at all.

Love,
Wayne

It is extremely frustrating to hear people who are voting in opposition to the equality of LGBTQ Americans simply brush it off as their "personal choice." What's even more infuriating is that our political system is continuing to allow that to happen, by permitting the rights of LGBTQ citizens to be decided upon by the majority of voters, most of whom will never be affected by LGBTQ equality.

LGBTQ people are denied a myriad of rights granted to their fellow heterosexual citizens. It doesn't stop at marriage equality (even in states where it has become legal, LGBTQ individuals are still denied over 1,100 federal marriage rights because of DOMA); it also includes things such as the right not to be fired, evicted, deported, harassed or forced to pay higher taxes simply for being LGBTQ.

When we have politicians and public figures openly and fiercely discriminating and legislating against LGBTQ people, it's no wonder many can reduce LGBTQ rights to simply another political issue we can openly debate and disagree on. However, we aren't deciding how we should spend public money or how we will work with foreign countries; instead, we are deciding whether or not our fellow citizens should have the same rights as everyone else. This is a clear civil rights issue and is no different from any civil rights movement of our past.

Today, most of us would surely be outraged if we were to take a vote on whether or not women should be able to work, or whether African Americans should be able to get married. We would be outraged if politicians spoke publicly about those minority groups the way they openly talk about LGBTQ citizens. Yet that's exactly what we are allowing to happen to the LGBTQ community, and somehow we've given ourselves permission to align with politicians who want to continue stripping away the rights of LGBTQ citizens and write it off as a simple difference of beliefs.

No one is taking away freedom of speech or religion, nor are they taking away anyone's choices or beliefs. The only people having their choices and freedoms infringed upon are LGBTQ people. We can see from our not-too-distant past that at one time it was certainly our right to choose whether or not we wanted rights for slaves, women, and African Americans. Most of us now find that completely obscure and morally wrong, but here we are again returning to the same situation.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves if putting the rights of a minority up to the vote of the majority is acceptable. If we must follow the system and partake in a political environment that is allowing that to happen, then the question becomes whether or not we vote for candidates who want to continue to oppress the LGBTQ community. We need to consider how we can use our voting power to ensure that we aren't suppressing our fellow citizens.

The rights of LGBTQ citizens shouldn't be our "choice," but sadly they are, and it's up to you to be on the right side of history and stand with your fellow Americans. LGBTQ equality is clearly something that should be a bipartisan issue, which it's not, and our equal rights should unify us, not divide us. How can anyone honestly believe that they should have the right to make a choice about whether or not fellow Americans are treated equally under the law?

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
There is nothing so revealing or, frankly, pathetic as the president of the United States, who has studiously avoided serious news interview shows, going on the Jay Leno show to tell women that Republicans don’t understand that “rape is rape.” It is a window into the mindset of a candidate and a campaign that is pulling its hair out over the gender gap and thinks the way to solve it is to treat women like quivering children.Obama is right to panic. The Associated Press reports:The Obama rhetoric is now nearly unintelligible. (“Romney quickly distanced...