Mitt Romney’s campaign might appear to be collapsing like a cheap card table, but one top Democrat close to President Barack Obama had a curt warning for allies who were declaring the election all but over on Tuesday. 
 
 It ain’t over, he said, until Karl Rove sings. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Romney on defense after remarks Big Question: What should Romney do? 
 
 That litmus test of when George W. Bush’s former impresario gives up on the race reflects the unprecedented strength of the powerful money machine supporting the GOP. It also shows why even a wounded Republican standard-bearer could limp to victory in November. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Mitt Romney, man of constant sorrow) 
 
 “I’ll relax when Karl Rove wakes up one morning and realizes that Mitt Romney can’t win the White House, and he needs to throw all his money at other races,” the adviser told POLITICO hours after Mother Jones posted hidden video of Romney describing Obama supporters as a government-dole-addicted 47 percent of the population who will never vote for the Republican. 
 
 “Until Rove does that, we are going to get outpaced by two to one, at least, by these super PACs. Add a couple of good debates for Romney, and the fact that he’s doing well in North Carolina, and [Paul] Ryan’s put Wisconsin in play — there’s your tight race.” 
 
 Caution is not the message emanating from the Washington echo chamber or from giddy Democrats — and depressed Republicans — who are drafting Romney’s political obituary with nearly 50 news cycles before Election Day. 
 
 But Romney, however humbled, has nearly 50 more chances to change the narrative. Despite his stunning missteps, his failure to articulate an attractive rationale for his candidacy, a growing GOP pessimism and tales of corrosive internal dissent, he remains within easy striking distance of Obama in most polls and is showing no signs of imminent collapse. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Romney woes jangle GOP nerves) 
 
 His support isn’t likely to dip much below 45 percent to 47 percent largely because nine in 10 Republicans are backing him. 
 
 “President Obama may make major strategic decisions in response to two tough days in the fishbowl — but that’s not how Crossroads rolls,” said Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for the Rove-linked groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. “Every state where Romney needs to win is tight — we know this; our donors know this; and we’re continuing with our plan to end this train wreck of a presidency that has been Obama’s last four years.” 
 
 There aren’t a lot of raging optimists in Obama’s inner circle anyway, and now, they are being very careful, in private, to moderate their glee with a realism. 
 
 “Democrats should just remember Florida 2000 before they get cocky,” veteran Democratic strategist Karen Finney said. “It’s the stuff you don’t see that goes under the radar — the robocalls … fliers and mailings. … That’s the kind of stuff you can’t detect. Karl Rove knows how to win,” she said. 
 
 A Democrat close to the campaign said national and international events could still upend the race. 
 
 “Could Mitt still get his s—- together and win? Sure. Could Obama have a couple of really bad economic reports, a couple of bad incidents in the Mideast, could Mitt outperform expectations in the debates? Yeah. … The bottom line is we’ve got to keep everybody focused ’cause no election has ever been won this far out.” 
 
 That isn’t to say Democrats aren’t elated by the latest turn of events. ||||| Advisers to Mitt Romney are split over how broadly and aggressively to attack President Barack Obama for his handling of foreign policy following the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, according to top Republicans close to the campaign. 
 
 Some aides are arguing that the campaign has been given a huge gift: a new opening to argue White House failure and incompetence. “Across the board – domestic, economic and foreign-policy issues – President Obama has been outmatched by events,” said a Romney adviser advocating an aggressive response to the chaos in the Middle East. “He’s an observer of events, not a shaper of events. Everywhere you look, he’s been outmatched.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 And indeed, POLITICO has learned that Romney now plans a major speech on foreign policy at some point after Wednesday’s debate, probably next week. The speech will focus on “a failed foreign policy and how we arrived at this moment, where people are storming our embassies, [and] the Iranians are storming ahead with their nuclear program,” said a senior Republican close to the campaign. 
 
 (PHOTOS: 10 slams on Obama and Benghazi) 
 
 “You can start to go around the world and look at all the crises, and our deteriorating relations with certain countries,” the Republican added. 
 
 But the campaign is sticking with its day-to-day message on the economy — a view promoted internally by Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist, who is among those arguing that issue is what voters will use to judge whether Obama deserves a second term. “As messy as the world looks, it’s not voters’ primary concern,” a top aide said. “And if we’re not talking about their primary concern, we’re not winning.” 
 
 The truth is Romney now finds himself besieged with conflicting advice, internally and externally: Attack Obama harder. Offer a detailed agenda. Pivot to foreign policy. Pivot back to the economy. 
 
 Romney’s response: Ignore it and stick to the game plan, which does not include any serious, sustained detour into foreign policy. His internal polls show the same thing as Obama’s: Voters just don’t care much about foreign policy in this election. This is the reason Obama was so quick to drop his attack on Romney for not mentioning the troops or Afghanistan in his convention speech. Voters didn’t seem to care. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Reid defends Rice, W.H. on Libya) 
 
 This is basically the Stuart Stevens doctrine. And regardless of the passionate arguments of some other aides, including several outside foreign-policy advisers, the boss is going with Stevens on this until further notice. 
 
 That doesn’t mean they won’t talk foreign policy at all. Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan previewed the campaign’s argument on “Fox News Sunday,” telling Chris Wallace: “We’re seeing the ugly fruits of the Obama foreign policy unravel around the world on our TV screens. Syria — you’ve got 20,000 dead people. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. The Middle East peace process is in shambles, and we have our flags being burned all around the world. Russia is thwarting us at every stage in the process. This is a weak foreign policy with terrible results, which makes us less safe.” 
 
 For now, Romney and Ryan plan to avoid discussing the Libya attack as an isolated issue, but instead plan to use the issue “to kick-start a broader conversation about the failure of Obama’s foreign policy, around the region and in many parts of the world,” a Romney aide said. 
 
 Romney and Ryan will answer questions about Libya when asked in interviews, but plan to say very little for now about the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in what the administration is now calling a “terrorist” attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
– As pundits were pronouncing Mitt Romney's chances all but gone yesterday, Politico summed up the thoughts of one skeptical Dem strategist this way: "It ain't over until Karl Rove sings." Well, Rove weighed in on the matter today, and he's not singing. The fuss over Romney's remarks on the 47% and on Libya before them "is a classic example of the commentariat investing moments with more meaning than they deserve," he writes in the Wall Street Journal. This will blow over, just as Obama's "you didn't build that" controversy did. Romney, though, better brace for lots of attacks on the issue and be deft in deflecting them. He also needs to get more specific on his plans to help the middle class, suggests Rove. Yes, Romney has big challenges, but Obama does, too, especially on the economy, so let's wait and see what the debates bring before calling the race. Romney "must reassure voters he's up to the job of being president," while the "fluid and agile" Obama "will be expected to command each encounter." If the president falls short, the polls might turn against him. Click for Rove's full column.