* Gallup: Sixty percent of national adults, and 63 percent of independents, say Obama’s support for gay marriage will make “no difference” to their votes.
While the “less likely” category does outweigh the “more likely” one, the numbers are marginal, suggesting, again, that this may be a wash.
* Aaron Blake takes another view, suggesting the numbers could be problematic, though even that case is heavy with qualifiers. And, as always, a debate over the issue could also be risky for Mitt Romney.
* National numbers showing support for gay marriage are frequently met with the question: What about in the swing states? Bob Shrum on why Obama’s announcement will be a wash there, too .
* In his big speech at Liberty University tomorrow, Romney will tiptoe into the gay marriage debate with extreme caution.
* Notable: Romney was silent on gay marriage today, during a visit to, of all places, North Carolina, still another sign he is wary of getting forced on to a culture war footing.
* Steve Benen’s regular Friday tally of Romney’s most glaring falsehoods and distortions of the week weighs in at a whopping 20 items.
* Brad Plumer on J.P. Morgan’s $2 billion loss and the broad implications it has for the entire financial industry and its ability to resist The Dem push for further regulation and oversight.
* The Obama campaign seizes (carefully) on the J.P. Morgan debacle to advance its argument that Romney would return us to the Wall Street free- for-all that helped precipitate the meldtown.
* But David Dayen points out that this should also be a major problem for the Obama administration, since it raises questions about the regulatory effectiveness of his Wall Street reforms.
* Conservative Web sites have gone to extreme lengths to debunk the Post’s Romney bullying story, but Post ombud Patrick Pexton takes a thorough look at all the criticism and finds the story holds up.
* It looks like Romney’s record on anti-gay bullying has done some evolving of its own.
* Romney’s economic and foreign policy teams are looking awfully similar to those who advised Obama’s predecessor, which won’t hurt the Dem case that Romney would represent a Bush restoration.
* And the snark of the day, courtesy of Jed Lewison, on Romney’s claim that his economic approach is unlike any other we’ve tried before:
If that’s true, it’s only because nobody has ever before run a presidential campaign premised on the notion that we need to give another try to the very same policies that crashed the economy just four years earlier. Well, nobody except for John McCain. And Herbert Hoover.