Sandy's death toll climbs; millions without power

NEW YORK (AP) — Millions of people from Maine to the Carolinas waited wearily for the power to come back on Tuesday, and New Yorkers found themselves all but cut off from the modern world as the U.S. death toll from Superstorm Sandy climbed to 40, many of the victims killed by falling trees.
The extent of the damage in New Jersey, where the storm roared ashore Monday night with hurricane-force winds of 80 mph, began coming into focus: homes knocked off their foundations, boardwalks wrecked and amusement pier rides cast into the sea.
"We are in the midst of urban search and rescue. Our teams are moving as fast as they can," Gov. Chris Christie said. "The devastation on the Jersey Shore is some of the worst we've ever seen. The cost of the storm is incalculable at this point."
As the storm steamed inland, still delivering punishing wind and rain, more than 8.2 million people across the East were without power. Airlines canceled more than 15,000 flights around the world, and it could be days before the mess is untangled and passengers can get where they're going.
The storm also disrupted the presidential campaign with just a week to go before Election Day.
President Barack Obama canceled a third straight day of campaigning, scratching events scheduled for Wednesday in swing state Ohio. Republican Mitt Romney resumed his campaign, but with plans to turn a political rally in Ohio into a "storm relief event."
Sandy will end up causing about $20 billion in property damage and $10 billion to $30 billion more in lost business, making it one of the costliest natural disasters on record in the U.S., according to IHS Global Insight, a forecasting firm.
Lower Manhattan, which includes Wall Street, was among the hardest-hit areas after the storm sent a nearly 14-foot surge of seawater, a record, coursing over its seawalls and highways.
Water cascaded into the gaping, unfinished construction pit at the World Trade Center, and the New York Stock Exchange was closed for a second day, the first time that has happened because of weather since the Blizzard of 1888. The NYSE said it will reopen on Wednesday.
A huge fire destroyed as many as 100 houses in a flooded beachfront neighborhood in Queens on Tuesday, forcing firefighters to undertake daring rescues. Three people were injured.
New York University's Tisch Hospital evacuated 200 patients after its backup generator failed. About 20 babies from the neonatal intensive care unit were carried down staircases and were given battery-powered respirators.
A construction crane that collapsed in the high winds on Monday still dangled precariously 74 floors above the streets of midtown Manhattan, and hundreds of people were evacuated as a precaution. And on Staten Island, a tanker ship wound up beached on the shore.
Some bridges into New York reopened, but some tunnels were closed, as were schools, Broadway theaters and the metropolitan area's three main airports, LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark.
With water standing in two major commuter tunnels and seven subway tunnels under the East River, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it was unclear when the nation's largest transit system would be rolling again. It shut down Sunday night ahead of the storm.
Joseph Lhota, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the damage was the worst in the 108-year history of the New York subway.
Similarly, Consolidated Edison said it could take at least a week to restore electricity to the last of the nearly 800,000 customers in and around New York City who lost power.
Millions of more fortunate New Yorkers surveyed the damage as dawn broke, their city brought to an extraordinary standstill.

Why Hurricane Sandy might cost Obama the popular vote—but not the presidency

This year’s black swan arrived on a rush of wind.
Once again, a highly unlikely, unanticipated event has roiled the waters—literally—late in the campaign cycle. Twelve years ago, it was the revelation of George W. Bush’s long-ago drunk driving arrest that likely cost him the popular vote and almost cost him the White House. Four years ago, the September collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near-collapse of the global financial universe turned a likely Obama victory into a certain one.
And this year, the impact of Hurricane Sandy makes it more likely that we’ll see a presidential election where the winner winds up winning fewer votes than the loser.
Even before Sandy struck the East Coast Monday, an observation was gaining hurricane force: What if Sandy had struck a week later? What if, on Election Day, tens of millions were without power, with mass transit shut, roads flooded, polling stations shut or inaccessible? Would states or the federal government postpone the voting?
Well, we don’t have to turn to “what-if” questions (much as I enjoy them). The storm will likely have a measurable impact on next Tuesday’s voting.
In the past, we’ve seen less powerful storms knock out power for well over a week. Flooding has already taken place on a massive scale, meaning that property owners across the East, and hundreds of miles inland, will be coping with water in their cellars, living rooms, stores and offices. There are schools that may still be closed. This means there’s a very good chance that voters—maybe hundreds of thousands of them—will be coping with urgent, personal affairs, and the trip to the polls may simply be one burden too many.
Now consider where these voters are: overwhelmingly, they’re in states where Obama is all but certain to win, and with huge pluralities. (The latest poll out of New York gives the President a 61-35 advantage over Mitt Romney, which translates to a 2-million-vote plurality.)
This enormous lead, combined with the post-storm burdens, suggests that there’s markedly less incentive than usual for Obama voters in deep-blue states to vote.
The likely result? An increased chance that Obama will lose the national popular vote to Romney, and thus an increased chance that we’ll see, as we did in 2000, a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College tally that in fact decides the presidency.
Should Obama win the election this way, it would be historic: We’ve never had an incumbent president returned to office while losing the popular vote. (Gerald Ford came close; despite losing the popular vote by 1.7 million votes, a shift of barely 11,000 votes in Ohio and Hawaii would have kept him in the White House).
More significant, it would rekindle the argument over the Electoral College that arose—briefly—in 2000: Is this 200-year old mechanism, with an overtly anti-democratic tilt (small states have disproportionately more clout than big states), the right way to choose a president?
After immersing myself in the mysteries of the Electoral College for a novel I wrote in the ’90s, I came away believing that the case for scrapping it is less obvious than I originally thought.
For one thing, losing the popular vote is not necessarily a sign of what “the people” really wanted. Candidates structure their campaigns around the Electoral College; had 2000 been a popular vote election, George W. Bush would have spent more time running up the vote in Texas and California’s inland empire, while Al Gore would have been campaigning in Dallas and Atlanta.
For another, the chaos that enveloped Florida back in 2000 might extend to every state if the popular vote was as close as it was in 1960, 1968, and 2000 (and as it may well be this time). Instead of lawyers and operatives descending on Florida, they might be loaded onto C-130s and parachuted into every state where disputes arose.
I grant you, this inquiry is speculative. It still may be that in the last week of the election, there will be a decisive shift in the electorate that turns a nail-biter into a clear victory. It may be that Sandy is not the Black Swan that will shape the outcome.
But what this storm has done is to raise the possibility of a different kind of storm—a political one—descending on us next week.

At final debate, Obama’s foreign policy offers tempting targets. Can Romney hit them?

Questionable progress amid mounting casualties in Afghanistan. A bloody civil war in Syria. Escalating tensions with Russia. A freshly assertive China worrying its neighbors. Iran defiantly pursuing its nuclear program. The killing of the American ambassador to Libya. Mitt Romney will have his pick of targets Monday night at his third and final debate with President Barack Obama, a faceoff focused on world affairs.
It's not the top issue on many voters' minds (that would be the economy, of course). But aides to both campaigns say voters need to be comfortable with the idea of their preferred candidate representing the country overseas—and responding to a literal life-or-death crisis.
Romney's mission seems straightforward: Convince any doubting voters that he can handle foreign policy. But Romney comes into the debate effectively the underdog, and not just because he isn't the commander in chief. Some of his forays into world affairs have foundered on avoidable missteps that at times have left him looking as awkward on the world stage as a very small dog trying to bite a watermelon.
Obama joked Thursday about his rival's best-known foreign policy struggle: a trip this summer to Britain, Israel and Poland that helped raised Romney's profile but was marred by headlines about gaffes.
"World affairs are a challenge for every candidate," Obama said at the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner in New York. "Some of you guys remember, after my foreign trip in 2008, I was attacked as a celebrity because I was so popular with our allies overseas. And I have to say, I'm impressed with how well Gov. Romney has avoided that problem."
At the debate, Obama plans to employ a strategy that calls for trying to make Romney look like a risky bet, while emphasizing his own successes (as Obama joked at the dinner: "Spoiler alert: We got bin Laden").
But you can cut out the smug chuckling, Obama fans: The political firestorm over the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, has come as the president's poll numbers on foreign policy have slumped. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released Sunday found that 49 percent of registered voters approved of Obama's handling of world affairs—the same as one month ago, but down from 54 percent approval and 40 percent disapproval in August. And the president's lead over Romney on who would make a better commander in chief slipped: He was up 44 percent to 41 percent compared to 47 percent to 39 percent one month ago.
And Obama isn't always sure-footed: Republicans, led by Romney, have hammered him for describing the bloody unrest in the Middle East as "bumps in the road" to democracy, for example. And the president earlier this year apologized to Poland's president after he referred to a "Polish death camp" that was on Polish soil but was built and operated by the German Nazis.
Against this backdrop, some foreign policy analysts have suggested that the two candidates differ mostly in symbol, not substance, when it comes to foreign affairs. There is some truth to this: On certain key issues, they don't disagree nearly as much as one, or both, of the candidates insist that they do. And when challengers become incumbents they often (re)discover the value of pragmatism. But on a handful of issues, a Romney administration could look sharply different from an Obama second term. Either way, here are some of the likely fights we'll see on Monday night.
Iran's nuclear program
Obama and Romney agree on the need for tough economic sanctions, backed with the threat of military force, to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. But each has a different "red line"—the point at which he would be willing to take the country to war.
The key distinction: Obama says Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear weapon—and insists that the United States and its allies will know if it tries to put one together, and will act to prevent it. Romney says Iran cannot be allowed to have the capability to build a nuclear weapon.
Romney's position is in line with that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly pressed the Obama administration to take a harder approach with Iran. It also sets a lower threshold for military action. Romney says he favors tougher sanctions than the ones Obama has approved, and insists that the president's threats to go to war as a last resort haven't been credible.

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama, Romney tied at 47 percent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are tied at 47 percent support each among likely voters with just over two weeks to go before the U.S. presidential election, a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Sunday said.

The nationwide poll, which was conducted after last Monday's presidential debate, reinforced the perception of the race as a cliffhanger.

It showed "a little bit of a lead" for Romney among the critical "battleground" states as a group, NBCcorrespondent Chuck Todd said on the network's "Meet the Press" program.

Among a larger sample of registered voters, Obama led Romney 49% to 44%, the Wall Street Journalsaid in a report on the poll on its website. This, however, was down from a seven-point edge the president had among registered voters in late September, the Journal said.

"Sitting at 47 is a good number for a challenger, but not a good number for an incumbent" close to the November 6 election, NBC's Todd said on Meet the Press. He said Obama's lead among women - 51 percent to 43 percent - was his smallest all year long.

Obama's campaign adviser David Axelrod, appearing on the NBC program, said polls for the election were "all over the map." He said he had always predicted Obama's re-election attempt would be close.

"If you look at the early voting that's going on around the country, it's very robust and its very favorable to us. And we think that's a better indicator than these public polls, which are frankly all over the, all over the map," Axelrod said.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman, a Republican who has helped Romney prepare for campaign debates, told Meet the Press: "I like what I see because the trend is in our direction ... that's where you want to be at this point in the campaign."

Romney has been closing in on Obama in recent weeks, with several surveys showing the pair tied or close to it, as Americans remain split between giving Obama more time to fix the economy, or choosing a former business executive who argues he knows best how to create jobs.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Saturday showed Obama with a razor-thin lead, 46 percent to 45 percent. The margin had narrowed from Friday when he had a three-point lead.

After the third and final presidential debate on Monday, Obama travels later in the week to battleground states Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia and Ohio to try to fend off Romney's challenge.

The NBC/WSJ poll of 816 likely voters and 1,000 registered voters was conducted October 17-20. It has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.43 percentage points for the sample of likely voters and plus-minus 3.1 percentage points for registered voters.

Top Facebook executive quits to join London's Tech City

LONDON (Reuters) - Joanna Shields, head of social media group Facebook's operations in Europe, is leaving to join a British government-sponsored venture to create London's answer to Silicon Valley.

Tech City Investment Organisation was set up in April 2011 to attract inward investment focused on an area in London's east End, dubbed "silicon roundabout" and supporting start-ups looking to expand.

It has signed up companies including Cisco, Google and Intel.

"The success of Tech City shows just what can happen when we back some of our most innovative and aspiring companies to grow," Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement on Sunday.

Shields, will join TCIO in January, said she would lead a drive that hopes to make London the number one location for tech in the world.

Her departure will be a blow to Facebook, the world's biggest social network, as the U.S. group seeks to reassure shareholders after a rough reception on Wall Street since its high profile listing in May.

Concern about its slowing revenue growth rate has seen its market valuation halve - Facebook shares closed at $19.00 on Friday, compared with a $38.00 issue price in May.

"Facebook supports the UK Government's vision for building a stronger technology-based economy and start-up ecosystem, and we wish Joanna every success," a company spokesman said.

Earlier this week, Facebook opened an engineering centre in London, its first outside the United States.

Apple drops Java after experts warn Mac users on its security

BOSTON (Reuters) - Apple Inc is removing old versions of Oracle Corp's Java software from Internet browsers on the computers of its customers when they install the latest update to its Mac operating system.

Apple, which has previously included Java with installations of Mac OS X, announced the move on its support site. It said that customers need to obtain Java directly from Oracle if they want to access web content written the widely used programming language. (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1572)

Apple did not provide a reason for the change and both companies declined to comment.

Java is a computer language that enables programmers to write one set of code to run on virtually any type of machine. It is widely used on the Internet so that Web developers can make their sites accessible from multiple browsers running on Macs or Microsoft Windows PCs.

Two years ago both companies said they had agreed that Apple would one day stop providing Java software to Mac customers and that would Oracle to take on that responsibility. They did not provide a date for that transition.

Apple is implementing that change in the wake of a Java security scare that prompted some security experts to caution computer users to only use Java on an as-needed basis.

Security experts in Europe discovered Java bugs in late August that hackers had exploited to launch attacks. It took Oracle several days to release an update to Java to correct those flaws.

Adam Gowdiak, a researcher with Polish security firm Security Explorations, said on Friday that he has since found two new security bugs in Java that continue to make computers vulnerable to attack.

Gowdiak said that removing Java from Mac browsers reduces the risks of an attack.

(Reporting By Jim Finkle; Editing by Richard Chang)

White House prepared to meet one-on-one with Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says it is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iran to find a diplomatic settlement to the impasse over Tehran's reported pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there's no agreement now to meet.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday that President Barack Obama has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and will do whatever's necessary to block that from happening. Vietor said Iran must come in line with its obligations, or else faced increased pressure.

"The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure," Vietor said in a statement. He noted that efforts to get Iran back to the table with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany — the so-called "P5+1" — continue.

Iran has been a recurring issue in the presidential election campaign and Vietor's statement was released shortly after The New York Times reported Saturday that the U.S. and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to negotiations. The paper said Iran has insisted the talks wait until after the Nov. 6 election.

Vietor, however, denied that any such agreement had been reached.

"It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections," he said. "We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."

Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will meet Monday night in a debate focusing on foreign policy and Iran's nuclear ambitions will likely be a topic. Obama has said he'll prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He hopes sanctions alongside negotiations can get Iran to halt uranium enrichment. But the strategy, which began during President George W. Bush's administration, hasn't worked yet. Obama holds out the threat of military action as a last resort. Romney has accused Obama of being weak on Iran and says the U.S. needs to present a greater military threat.

Despite unprecedented global penalties, Iran's nuclear program is advancing as it continues to defy international pressure, including four rounds of sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, to prove that its atomic intentions are peaceful.

Those sanctions, coupled with tough measures imposed by the United States and European nations are taking their toll, particularly on Iran's economy. Iranian authorities have in recent weeks been forced to quell protests over the plummeting value of the country's currency. The rial lost nearly 40 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar in a week in early October, but has since slightly rebounded.

U.S. officials say they are hopeful that pressure from the sanctions may be pushing Iran's leaders toward concessions, including direct talks with the United States. But several said on Saturday that they did not believe such discussions would happen any time soon.

If one-on-one talks are to occur, they would likely follow the model that the U.S. has used in six-nation nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, the officials said.

In those discussions, U.S. negotiators have met separately with their North Korean counterparts but only as part of the larger effort, which also involves China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Direct U.S.-North Korean talks are preceded and followed by intense consultations with the other members of the group.

However, the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either. If U.S.-Iran talks do occur, they would likely be part of the P5+1 process, which groups the Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States and is overseen by the European Union. The group has met numerous times with Iranian officials but has yet to achieve any significant progress.

In late September, the group instructed EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to reach out to Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to organize another meeting. No date had been set for the possible resumption of talks.

Iran says its program is for peaceful energy and research purposes but Western nations fear the Islamic republic is determined to develop nuclear weapons and fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Middle East. That would pose a grave threat to Israel.

Israel has threatened to strike Iran's nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't stop uranium enrichment a process that can be a pathway to nuclear arms. Israel could decide to strike Iran's nuclear sites on its own, and Israeli leaders say time to act is running out. They have also hinted they would like U.S. support for any such attack.

An Israeli strike on Iran with or without Washington's involvement would likely draw retribution from Tehran including possible attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests overseas or disruptions to the transit of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, which could send oil prices skyrocketing.

Obama has counseled patience as public as American public support for another Mideast conflict is low with the Iraq war over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding down.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Andrew Miga contributed to this report.