IT'S OVER: The Left's Information Warfare Campaign Has Failed -- and Mitt Romney is Going to Win This Election

Are you down? Are you glum, dejected, feeling like Republicans can't catch a break? Are you sick of Mitt Romney's gaffes, hyped hysterically by obsolete media with breathless "Romney Can't Win 2012" Special Reports?

Have you been overwhelmed by criticism of the GOP from so-called conservatives? Let's consider the sources: Bill Kristol is a useless coot whose predictions are unerringly off-base. Peggy Noonan is a yenta. Rich Lowery is a sellout. And David Brooks isn't worth the three seconds I just spent typing this sentence. All of them are more worried about invitations to glitterati parties than they are in saving this Republic.

In the face of liberal agitprop campaigns, they wet their Depends and run away.

I'm not down. I feel good. Let's consider where we are in this campaign cycle.

The Professional Left has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the Romney campaign. It prematurely ejaculated an October Surprise -- "the 47 percent" recording -- weeks too early. It's hysterically marketed other similar, trivial statements as campaign-ending for Romney.

But the campaign isn't over and those weren't gaffes.

Though you wouldn't know it from Sixties media, the three biggest verbal gaffes this month all were uttered by Barack Obama:

3. On Univision, Obama admitted that he "can't change Washington from the inside."

2. On the David Letterman show, Obama claimed he didn't know the amount of the national debt, a terrifyingly large burden on the young and future generations

1. On the issue of the 9/11 terror attacks in Libya, Obama and his administration have been caught in a series of lies and cover-ups.

The debates are coming. You got a "47" gaffe? I'll top you with a "57" (remember how candidate Obama said he hoped to visit all 57 states?).

Obama without TOTUS is like Joe Biden without the hair-plugs. Romney has been tempered through the fires of a dozen, hard-core, debate melees.

And Obama has had precisely zero debates and, for that matter, hasn't even entertained a serious interview in years. Without practice -- and with his increasingly questionable work ethic -- I have a prediction to make:

Obama is going to stumble in these debates. He will stumble badly. And he will reveal himself.

Furthermore, when you come right down to it, he's an easy mark. He has a record he must try to defend. And that record is downright ugly. He can blame Bush, Tsunamis, ATMs and the Euro for all of his failures, but if he tries, he'll sound even more like an unpresidential loser than usual.

The combination of being confronted with his failures -- one after the other, with no real way to spin or lie without blatantly appearing as a charlatan -- along with his documented case of Aggressive Narcissism results in my Lock o' the Week prognostication:

Obama will seriously stumble in these debates. It will be cringe-worthy.

Oh, and then there are the polls. The polls that seem to magnify each "gaffe" a thousand-fold to stifle Republican optimism. Well, polling expert John McClaughlin offers the straight scoop as to what we're seeing there:

On what a realistic partisan breakdown would look like: “The 2004 national exit polls showed an even partisan turnout and Bush won 51–48. Had it been the +4 Democratic edge of 2000, John Kerry would have been president. 2008 was a Democratic wave that gave them a +7 partisan advantage. 2010 was a Republican edge. There’s no wave right now. There are about a dozen swing states where in total millions of voters who voted in 2008 for Obama are gone or have not voted since...

...There are also hundreds of thousands of voters in each of several swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and others who voted from rural, exurban or suburban areas in 2004 for Bush who did not vote in 2008, because they were not excited by McCain or thought he would lose. They are currently planning to vote mainly as a vote against President Obama.”

What Obama and his allies are doing now: “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR [Interactive Voice Response] polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are ‘not enthusiastic’ to vote or non-voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30 percent range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. We’ll see a lot more of this. Then there’s the debate between calling off a random-digit dial of phone exchanges vs. a known sample of actual registered voters. Most polls favoring Obama are random and not off the actual voter list. That’s too expensive” for some pollsters.

That's not all. I think we'll see a couple of related, interesting anomalies in this election:

• The impact of a phenomenal drop in households with landlines, which badly skews polling
• The return of the Bradley Effect
• The return of the Reagan Democrats, in this case, union members who realize their jobs are at stake, but tell the pollsters they're voting with the bosses and actually pull the lever for the GOP
• A much larger percentage drop in the Black vote for Obama than anyone's anticipating (see Why Romney Is Going to Romp over Obama in November)

As much as old media tries to tell us that Obama is a sure thing, he's actually anything but.

Which is why, for example, he's in... Wisconsin this week.

Mitt Romney is going to win this election. Write it down. Take it to the bank.

But before you do, send 'em a couple of bucks. We have a country to repair.