Is there really any debate here???

[swizzlee]

Every 4 years right about this time, I find myself sick of it all.

I'm sick of the ugly ads [by both sides should you wish to argue this] and I live in a state where we rarely see them.

I'm sick to death of the media analyzing every single word uttered by any candidate anywhere.. Will this ad hurt Obama? Romney? Who will be VP? When will we know? Where are his tax returns? OMG, Mitt and Bain killed a woman!

Paul Ryan. What the hell - why not?

I'm sick of the spin. I'm sick of the repetition.

I knew whom I'd be voting for long before I could spell out all the reasons.

The relevant polls point the way.

The economic stats are all negative for the O - 8.3 UE, GDP below 2.0 for past 2 qtrs, retail sales down, foreclosures still ongoing, job creation in the ditch and well below population growth for endless months, yada, yada, yada. And not getting better. Stagnant.

Pub enthusiasm is UP. Dem enthusiasm is DOWN. And that translates in to voting or not voting. The O loses that game.

It doesn't matter if the O is "more popular" than Mitt. It does matter that more people trust Mitt to handle the economy better than O.

It doesn't matter if the O has the Hispanic vote when he's losing young people, blacks, blue collar men and, oh yeah, the Indies.

It doesn't matter if the O is "leading" in this poll or that poll. They're dead even, neck and neck and inside the margin of error.

After the VP pick, I anticipate Mitt will focus on laying out his "plan" in greater detail and as the election draws closer, that "plan" will only draw greater attention to the fact that the O has NO plan.Hit him right between the eyes when it counts. Not now.

The Undecideds will call this game. They're not committing yet. Altho they know Mitt is a helluva lot more competent than the O, they're not sure they really like him. So they'll wait until the very last minute, waiting to see if some thunderbolt event will occur that will make up their mind for them.

It won't happen. The only thing that will happen is that the October jobs report will come out the Friday before the election. And they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt.

I'm interested, of course, in the VP pick. I'll be interested in watching the conventions [both] and then the debates.

But it's over. Mitt will win this. No, it won't be a landslide. But neither do I think it will be a repeat of 2000. I really don't believe this is nearly as close as some would have you believe.

 

[auditor0007]

Every 4 years right about this time, I find myself sick of it all.

I'm sick of the ugly ads [by both sides should you wish to argue this] and I live in a state where we rarely see them.

I'm sick to death of the media analyzing every single word uttered by any candidate anywhere.. Will this ad hurt Obama? Romney? Who will be VP? When will we know? Where are his tax returns? OMG, Mitt and Bain killed a woman!

Paul Ryan. What the hell - why not?

I'm sick of the spin. I'm sick of the repetition.

I knew whom I'd be voting for long before I could spell out all the reasons.

The relevant polls point the way.

The economic stats are all negative for the O - 8.3 UE, GDP below 2.0 for past 2 qtrs, retail sales down, foreclosures still ongoing, job creation in the ditch and well below population growth for endless months, yada, yada, yada. And not getting better. Stagnant.

Pub enthusiasm is UP. Dem enthusiasm is DOWN. And that translates in to voting or not voting. The O loses that game.

It doesn't matter if the O is "more popular" than Mitt. It does matter that more people trust Mitt to handle the economy better than O.

It doesn't matter if the O has the Hispanic vote when he's losing young people, blacks, blue collar men and, oh yeah, the Indies.

It doesn't matter if the O is "leading" in this poll or that poll. They're dead even, neck and neck and inside the margin of error.

After the VP pick, I anticipate Mitt will focus on laying out his "plan" in greater detail and as the election draws closer, that "plan" will only draw greater attention to the fact that the O has NO plan.Hit him right between the eyes when it counts. Not now.

The Undecideds will call this game. They're not committing yet. Altho they know Mitt is a helluva lot more competent than the O, they're not sure they really like him. So they'll wait until the very last minute, waiting to see if some thunderbolt event will occur that will make up their mind for them.

It won't happen. The only thing that will happen is that the October jobs report will come out the Friday before the election. And they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt.

I'm interested, of course, in the VP pick. I'll be interested in watching the conventions [both] and then the debates.

But it's over. Mitt will win this. No, it won't be a landslide. But neither do I think it will be a repeat of 2000. I really don't believe this is nearly as close as some would have you believe.

You might be right about Mitt winning, but he is going to need more votes in the right places to pull it off. What you are wrong about is that there is any real excitement about Mitt. There are very few people who really like him. I thought he was a great candidate four years ago and I was supporting him enthusiastically, but he lost me and now I'm supporting Romney. I just don't see what you are seeing.

 

[FA_Q2]

You seem quite sure that Mitt is going to win this one. I just don’t see that his chances are that good. It is quite possible that he will win this but I don’t see that the likely outcome has tilted in either of their favors yet.

Has Obama screwed the pooch on the economy? Sure. That does not mean people are going to trust Mitt to fix it though. If Obama is good at anything it would be politics and getting people to vote for him whether or not he has any real plans or ideas. You do remember ‘hope and change’ right. Obama won the first election on nothing. There is also this inate hate for the right that came from Bush that has not entirely dissipated. In all honesty, it was Bush that won the election for Obama the first time.

Are you actually serious when you say that Obama is losing the black vote? If you actually think that is happening then I don’t know what to say…

 

[candycorn]

Every 4 years right about this time, I find myself sick of it all.

I'm sick of the ugly ads [by both sides should you wish to argue this] and I live in a state where we rarely see them.

I'm sick to death of the media analyzing every single word uttered by any candidate anywhere.. Will this ad hurt Obama? Romney? Who will be VP? When will we know? Where are his tax returns? OMG, Mitt and Bain killed a woman!

Paul Ryan. What the hell - why not?

I'm sick of the spin. I'm sick of the repetition.

I knew whom I'd be voting for long before I could spell out all the reasons.

The relevant polls point the way.

The economic stats are all negative for the O - 8.3 UE, GDP below 2.0 for past 2 qtrs, retail sales down, foreclosures still ongoing, job creation in the ditch and well below population growth for endless months, yada, yada, yada. And not getting better. Stagnant.

Pub enthusiasm is UP. Dem enthusiasm is DOWN. And that translates in to voting or not voting. The O loses that game.

It doesn't matter if the O is "more popular" than Mitt. It does matter that more people trust Mitt to handle the economy better than O.

Actually, popularity is one of the few things that does matter.

It doesn't matter if the O has the Hispanic vote when he's losing young people, blacks, blue collar men and, oh yeah, the Indies.

Obama is not losing the black vote. Nor the Hispanic vote. Rust Belt states are leaning Obama who is up big in PA, MI, WI and doing very well in Ohio.

It doesn't matter if the O is "leading" in this poll or that poll. They're dead even, neck and neck and inside the margin of error.

In some states yes; in most states it's well outside the margin of error and has given Obama an insurmountable electoral vote lead.

After the VP pick, I anticipate Mitt will focus on laying out his "plan" in greater detail and as the election draws closer, that "plan" will only draw greater attention to the fact that the O has NO plan.Hit him right between the eyes when it counts. Not now.

The plan is known already:
* Cut all regulation so Wall street can get "creative" again.
* Cut taxes on the rich, increase taxes on everyone else
* Repeal Obamney care and replace it with nothing
* Repeal Roe v. Wade
* Reduce any workers rights as much as possible

The Undecideds will call this game. They're not committing yet. Altho they know Mitt is a helluva lot more competent than the O, they're not sure they really like him. So they'll wait until the very last minute, waiting to see if some thunderbolt event will occur that will make up their mind for them.

I heard today that 9 out of 10 are already decided (yesterday actually). There aren't enough undecideds left that will allow the billion dollars the Governor has raised to have much effect. He waited too late to campaign.

It won't happen. The only thing that will happen is that the October jobs report will come out the Friday before the election. And they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt.

I'm interested, of course, in the VP pick. I'll be interested in watching the conventions [both] and then the debates.

But it's over. Mitt will win this. No, it won't be a landslide. But neither do I think it will be a repeat of 2000. I really don't believe this is nearly as close as some would have you believe.

Obama will have this sewn up quite quickly on election night. If he holds his lead in Florida, it will be over by 4:00 PST. If not, the drama will last a few hours longer.

The real fun on Election Night is that the networks are not calling races early any longer; only as the polls close. So there will likely be a 2 hour window between the East Coast and the California (Obama up huge), Oregon (Obama up huge) and Washington (Obama up even more huge-er lol) returns to come back. They'll dilly-dally around because they can't call it until that block of 80 electoral votes (counting NV) come in.

Obama' win will be a foregone conclusion but it will be fun to see Fox hosts immolate Cronkite's announcement that Kennedy was shot; voice breaking, tear in their eyes. By 10:00 PM the discussion on Fox will be to see if electors can change their votes. Maybe even more birther hysteria and a discussion on how we need to change the electoral college.

 

[midcan5]

Every 4 years right about this time, I find myself sick of it all...

Sounds like what you are tired of is democracy and the politics that comes along with it. Life is complicated and that is why we argue and fight over what we value, in the end it makes a big difference as Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, and Reagan proved. For me Reagan is the bad guy in that list. Politics have real consequences: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html

"We do face an entitlement crisis, then. But it is not the one identified by Fox News and the Neoliberal Right. It is the one concealed by the nomenclature and attacks by the Right. What’s more, as the recent economic meltdown in 2008 demonstrated, these entitlements are not only unjust, they are extremely dangerous. A class entitlement to escape regulation while putting at risk a whole society, and indeed world, is nothing to sneeze at. And as we have seen most recently, even if a world wide depression is avoided after such a meltdown, its costs and sacrifices gradually trickle down the social ladder until they, too, reach those at the middle and bottom layers of society. So, the rich and the superrich feel entitled to monopolize the largesse when growth occurs and to pass down the costs of their adventurism when the bottom falls out. That is a hell of a lot of entitlement. That is precisely why so many are so eager to publicize the false version of “the entitlement society” today, within state legislatures controlled by the Republican Party, through Superpacs allowed by the gang of five neoliberals on the Supreme Court, and on the 24 hour News Media. Reduce the deficit, they chant, by curtailing programs supporting the middle and poor classes. Quietly accept the double-trickle down process. But don’t you dare touch the entitlements of the rich that put everyone else at risk." William E. Connolly The Contemporary Condition: The Real Entitlement Crisis

"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote. Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment. If this happens the effort would succeed." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'

 

[Moonglow]

Every 4 years right about this time, I find myself sick of it all.

I'm sick of the ugly ads [by both sides should you wish to argue this] and I live in a state where we rarely see them.

I'm sick to death of the media analyzing every single word uttered by any candidate anywhere.. Will this ad hurt Obama? Romney? Who will be VP? When will we know? Where are his tax returns? OMG, Mitt and Bain killed a woman!

Paul Ryan. What the hell - why not?

I'm sick of the spin. I'm sick of the repetition.

I knew whom I'd be voting for long before I could spell out all the reasons.

The relevant polls point the way.

The economic stats are all negative for the O - 8.3 UE, GDP below 2.0 for past 2 qtrs, retail sales down, foreclosures still ongoing, job creation in the ditch and well below population growth for endless months, yada, yada, yada. And not getting better. Stagnant.

Pub enthusiasm is UP. Dem enthusiasm is DOWN. And that translates in to voting or not voting. The O loses that game.

It doesn't matter if the O is "more popular" than Mitt. It does matter that more people trust Mitt to handle the economy better than O.

It doesn't matter if the O has the Hispanic vote when he's losing young people, blacks, blue collar men and, oh yeah, the Indies.

It doesn't matter if the O is "leading" in this poll or that poll. They're dead even, neck and neck and inside the margin of error.

After the VP pick, I anticipate Mitt will focus on laying out his "plan" in greater detail and as the election draws closer, that "plan" will only draw greater attention to the fact that the O has NO plan.Hit him right between the eyes when it counts. Not now.

The Undecideds will call this game. They're not committing yet. Altho they know Mitt is a helluva lot more competent than the O, they're not sure they really like him. So they'll wait until the very last minute, waiting to see if some thunderbolt event will occur that will make up their mind for them.

It won't happen. The only thing that will happen is that the October jobs report will come out the Friday before the election. And they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt.

I'm interested, of course, in the VP pick. I'll be interested in watching the conventions [both] and then the debates.

But it's over. Mitt will win this. No, it won't be a landslide. But neither do I think it will be a repeat of 2000. I really don't believe this is nearly as close as some would have you believe.

If Mittens don't win there is always a way to express your disdain;

 

[swizzlee]

I think you need to revie your post......

and make some corrections.

I'm not wrong about "any real excitement" about Mitt. I didn't claim anyone was excited about him on a personal level.

Who "lost you" and who are you supporting?

 

[swizzlee]

A diversionary tactic on your part?

My post has nothing to do with democracy as a whole.

Being sick to death of the spin meisters within the political system has no relationship to democracy in the larger definition.

 

[swizzlee]

It's all about perception.............

The current status of the race hasn't changed - it appears to be dead even, more or less. No tilt at all, at least on the surface. It's only about how you interpret the signals that are there for all to see. I've laid out what I think those signals are and how they will ultimately affect the election in November.

Has Obama screwed the pooch on the economy? Sure. That does not mean people are going to trust Mitt to fix it though.

Except an abundance of polls show Mitt IS trusted more on the economy and by a healthy margin in most polls. And the question on most polls on this subject is usually "who do you trust more ON the economy" or "who do you think is MORE LIKELY to be able to fix the economy" The question is never "who CAN" fix it.

Obama won the first election on nothing

Absolutely correct. Do you really believe there are enough people [non-Dems] who still believe in "hope and change" after seeing what that has brought in his first term? Do you really believe the undecideds and/or the Indies are really going to prefer a man who has "screwed the pooch" on the economy when the economy is by far the major issue? You are correct that Bush won the first election for the O. But that's not going to happen this time around. The O is being evaluated on HIS performance, not Bush's.

Of course I'm saying he is losing black voters. Many polls have shown that to be true. Perhaps your mistake is in interpreting that to mean they're walking away in huge numbers. They are not. What you need to look at are comparison charts that show the actual % of blacks who voted for him in 2008 against polls of blacks who will vote for him today. The polls on average seem to show a 3-4% drop - from about 95% in 2008 to about 91-2% today.

When you take all the various voting blocks with whom he's lost support and analyze it by the demographics for each group, it spells big problems for the O.

His biggest problem IMHO is not the black voter loss but the blue collar whites who make up far greater numbers and will have a far greater impact on the eventual outcome.

 

[swizzlee]

Popularity in presidential elections.......

is only popular as a deciding factor among the true partisans or the truly brain-dead.

The people who are serious about their politics and the people who will decide this election decide on the issues and who is felt to be more capable of dealing with them. Popularity won't fix our economy.

Obama is indeed losing a percentage of the black vote along with loses by various percentages in other voting blocs. If he were holding on to all those who voted for him in 2008, he would be running on average 3 pts ahead of Romney. He isn't. Because he's lost about 2-3% of his base. And it doesn't matter at all what the polls show in any of the states today.

You are trying to make an argument over statistics as they exist today. Tomorrow is never the same as today.

Romney's "plan" straight from the Dem playbook and swallowed whole by a brain-dead partisan living in la-la land?

Actually the rest of your post is also coming straight from la-la land.

You have presented your argument,what there is of it, based on today's reality being tomorrow's reality. And that never works.

 

[MHunterB]

I find myself wondering if the 'It's already certain Xxxx will win' is going to have any effect on people deciding to vote -or stay home.

Not nearly enough of us who can vote, do so - that's how the religious right managed to get such unholy influence in the Republican party to begin with, over 30 years ago. They ran their candidates for any open position at a town or county level, and started from there...... ANY group with a clear agenda and organization could do the same: it's perfectly legal. (In fact, if the Libertarians were as clever as I hope - they'd 'infiltrate' the Dems that way!)

 

[swizzlee]

I think that way of thinking...............

would likely come into play as you get closer to election day and one candidate or the other shows a clear lead.

But I also think it can affect those from either party, some of whom would be making excuses for being too lazy to vote.

My guy is way ahead. My vote won't change that.

My guy is way behind. My vote won't change that.

But I don't think that will be that big a factor in this race. I think the decision to vote or not vote will be based on the voter's level of disappointment with the O's job performance.

I suspect disappointed Dems will most likely stay home. Moderate Dems may vote for Romney.

Disappointed Pubs will get out and vote. Consistently the polls have shown much greater enthusiasm by the Pubs.

That combo does spell big trouble for the O.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's all about perception.............

The current status of the race hasn't changed - it appears to be dead even, more or less. No tilt at all, at least on the surface. It's only about how you interpret the signals that are there for all to see. I've laid out what I think those signals are and how they will ultimately affect the election in November.

Has Obama screwed the pooch on the economy? Sure. That does not mean people are going to trust Mitt to fix it though.

Except an abundance of polls show Mitt IS trusted more on the economy and by a healthy margin in most polls. And the question on most polls on this subject is usually "who do you trust more ON the economy" or "who do you think is MORE LIKELY to be able to fix the economy" The question is never "who CAN" fix it.

This is true. I am not sure it is going to make as big of an impact as you think though. There are other factors in play here as well. Things like Obamacare that is going to show all the positives without any of the negatives over the next couple of months with Romney not even bothering to answer it other than shout REPEAL. That might work for the voters on the right; it does not for voters on the left of center. There is the fact that, currently, Obama is defining Romney and on his terms not on Romney’s. Romney looks weaker on foreign policy than Obama and Romney’s campaign seems to be getting off to a rocky start. As far as I know, Obama is still outspending him even though Romney has gained more funding. Will all that cash be spent to later, after voters have made up their mind? There is a lot going on here and one poll question I think reflects none of that.

Obama won the first election on nothing

Absolutely correct. Do you really believe there are enough people [non-Dems] who still believe in "hope and change" after seeing what that has brought in his first term? Do you really believe the undecideds and/or the Indies are really going to prefer a man who has "screwed the pooch" on the economy when the economy is by far the major issue? You are correct that Bush won the first election for the O. But that's not going to happen this time around. The O is being evaluated on HIS performance, not Bush's.

No, I don’t think anyone is going to vote for ‘hope and change’ again. That ship sailed. What they are going to vote for is Obama’s new nothing sale. Currently it seems to be hate the rich.

Of course I'm saying he is losing black voters. Many polls have shown that to be true. Perhaps your mistake is in interpreting that to mean they're walking away in huge numbers. They are not. What you need to look at are comparison charts that show the actual % of blacks who voted for him in 2008 against polls of blacks who will vote for him today. The polls on average seem to show a 3-4% drop - from about 95% in 2008 to about 91-2% today.

I can understand that then. Of course, this was a given. The minority vote was far more charged when they were voting for the first minority president. Now, he is just another one of ‘the man.’ Demographics mean little though when parsed out as black/white/Hispanic because those votes do not mean anything in that context. What is important is the college and there is no clear lead for Romney in the contested states. As a matter of fact, most information I have seen shows Obama has the lead there.

When you take all the various voting blocks with whom he's lost support and analyze it by the demographics for each group, it spells big problems for the O.

His biggest problem IMHO is not the black voter loss but the blue collar whites who make up far greater numbers and will have a far greater impact on the eventual outcome.

Also true but also meaningless unless paresd out according to the college.

In the end of the day I guess what I am trying to get across is that the idea there is no debate because it is clear that Romney is going to take this election is rather naive and ignores all the actual facts. Nothing points to either of the candidates having a significant edge and currently most indicators point to Obama having the edge.

I would also point out that apathy is what loses elections. If we are just accepting that Romney is going to win, it will do more harm than good.

 

[Vidi]

A diversionary tactic on your part?

My post has nothing to do with democracy as a whole.

Being sick to death of the spin meisters within the political system has no relationship to democracy in the larger definition.

Edited.

There are only maybe ten states in play.

Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Check out this interactive map.

2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

Based on recent swing state polling, its going to be VERY VERY CLOSE.

Maybe even closer than 2000.

 

[FA_Q2]

A diversionary tactic on your part?

My post has nothing to do with democracy as a whole.

Being sick to death of the spin meisters within the political system has no relationship to democracy in the larger definition.

Im sorry to say this but your original post is nothing but spin...the very thing you claim to be sick of.

There are only maybe ten states in play.

Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Check out this interactive map.

2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

Based on recent swing state polling, its going to be VERY VERY CLOSE.

Maybe even closer than 2000.

I think it’s funny that your link gives the republicans a 6 percent chance of actually wining and the dems a 93 percent chance. Not that they are claiming they do projections but it was rather funny.

 

[swizzlee]

Come back to me later.................

After the conventions. What I'm seeing in most of your response is too much of a reliance on current "who's ahead" polls which show exactly what I stated in my top post - it's tied. But they won't remain tied. The electoral map won't stay the same. Somebody is going to win.

What I attempted to do was to analyze what all of the polls [NOT just the "who will you vote for"] and how as a whole they point to a winner. And I believe they point to Romney.

This is what is involved in research. You have to weight the value of a single piece of evidence against the other evidence to arrive at a final conclusion.

I will give an example. I am looking at a Death Certificate. You can be much more certain that the date of death is correct but less certain that the date of birth is correct. Because an informant is providing the birth information. He could be very wrong. Analyzing the most likely truth within this DC, would you give higher weight to the death date or the birth date?

That's what I've tried to do with the various non-personality polls. When polls consistently say the economy is the top issue and when a higher % of people favor Romney to deal with the economy, it's logical to place higher weight on Romney over the O.

If the main issue was free contraceptives for women, Obama would be weighted higher.

And of course there's room for debate here. Don't get too hung up on my rhetorical title question

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Honestly, I only think Mitt would win if Obama has bad financial problems. Which he may, he has spent almost as much as he has raised since 2008, according to Opensecrets.org

Summary data for Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

 

[swizzlee]

Pu-leeze, Vidi.............

I suspect you didn't even read my post if that's all you got out of it.

Because you don't seem to understand - this is not about the status as it exists today. I know the swing states by heart. I've seen every electoral map on the net.

I didn[t say it wouldn't be close - maybe yes, maybe no.

What I did say is that I believe all the pointers project forward to election day as a win for Romney.

If you're uncertain about the outcome, that's OK with me.

 

[Vidi]

Pu-leeze, Vidi.............

I suspect you didn't even read my post if that's all you got out of it.

Because you don't seem to understand - this is not about the status as it exists today. I know the swing states by heart. I've seen every electoral map on the net.

I didn[t say it wouldn't be close - maybe yes, maybe no.

What I did say is that I believe all the pointers project forward to election day as a win for Romney.

If you're uncertain about the outcome, that's OK with me.

Allow me to quote you:

Mitt will win this. No, it won't be a landslide. But neither do I think it will be a repeat of 2000. I really don't believe this is nearly as close as some would have you believe.

Now lets quote me

Based on recent swing state polling, its going to be VERY VERY CLOSE.

Maybe even closer than 2000.

Poll: Romney leads in Colo., Obama in Va., Wis. - CBS News

Daily Kos: Poll: Obama leads key swing states, nearly 9 in 10 say mind is made up

It is my opinion, that this election will come down to ONE state.


I didnt attack you point that Mitt may win. He might. But now that youve called me out:

Based on recent polling in the swing states, your assertion that "all the pointers project forward to election day as a win for Romney." is not based on current polling data and is therefore has no basis in fact and is proven invalid.

 

[swizzlee]

Let me say this one more time.............

This is NOT about current polls as you are trying to define them. It is particularly not about a candidate's CURRENT STANDING in TODAY'S POLLS or any of the damn maps. Do you know how many of them are out there?

Quoting myself:

It doesn't matter if the O is "leading" in this poll or that poll. They're dead even, neck and neck and inside the margin of error.

And yes, you did attack me [although your shot was lousy wide] by claiming my post was all spin.

My post was about projecting out to the finish line based on MANY current polls on a wide variety of poll questions. You don't seem to understand that principle or the definition of analysis.

To quote you:

Based on recent polling in the swing states, your assertion that "all the pointers project forward to election day as a win for Romney." is not based on current polling data and is therefore has no basis in fact and is proven invalid.

What you don't seem to understand is that all of those polls, including the swing states, fluctuate daily. I am clearly basing my projection on current polls but ALL of them, not just a select few. What I am telling you is that you seem to be relying too much only on the daily "popularity" polls in the swing states and I'm trying to tell you there is a lot more to it than that.