>>>>>>>>I say supposedly, because although polls now show NC leaning to the Republican side, unless some huge blunder occurs (and it would have to be so huge as to sway even diehards), I think that Obama will take NC, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and Wisconsin on November 6th. The popular vote may go the other way some of those states, but the electoral will go Obama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>your link to www.fivethirtyeight.com fits my personal view/estimates really well, esp. the granular view of states
>>>>>>>leaning to a candidate as percentage of winning probabilty. I see the swing states result mostly as a function of
>>>>>>>undecided voters switching to one camp, and more swing states falling into a specific camp
>>>>>>>as the general trend moves the watershed line, which is the closest race state among those states lined up
>>>>>>>along the probability dimension/scale.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On that scale NC is one of the swing states to fall most likely/earliest to Romney: do you think NC is placed at a false point
>>>>>>>on that scale or that Obama will win by that great a margin ? In my view of things, the most likely swing states to fall to
>>>>>>>Romney are (order desc) NC, Va, Co, NH, Nev - Fl somewhere in between (one of the states I feel fluctuate too much for
>>>>>>>good take from overseas) and Oh being the one probably most decisive for winning the presidency in case it really is a close race on election day (fits with their tipping state and ROI calc) - which I think will not happen, as I said playing Cassandra last month.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NC will go Obama. None of the swing states really matter--all Obama has to do is get Ohio and he's won. IMHO, this is mostly just news organizations trying to attract viewers.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a bold prediction. IMO if NC goes Obama it's over. Most of what I'm seeing tells me it won't. The trend, the money & staff pullout and the President's campaign's "oh heaven's no" reaction to being asked about giving up NC suggest the state is Romney's and the campaigns are focusing on closer races.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right now in the toss-us I see Romney taking NC, Virginia, Florida & Colorado. Obama taking Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nevada & New Hampshire making it R-257 O-253 with Wisconsin and Ohio still in play (under 2% diff). Wisconsin with 10 electoral votes cannot win for either making Ohio critical to both.
>>>>>
>>>>>The trend towards Romney has slowed but is still moving. If Obama cannot stop it, election day may be a rout.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I am just biased but I am seeing the momentum swing back the other way. After the debacle in the first debate, the last two debates have been very strong for Obama. He has seemed Presidential while Romney has at times come across as a kid trying on Dad's clothes.
>>>
>>>I know you'll be shocked to know I saw it exactly the opposite. Obama looked like Biden last night. A condescending clown, where Romney looked authoratative and more importantly optics-wise, unwilling to take Obama's bait and sink to his level. Romney has the lead and his performance showed it. Obama is behind and leaking and he was clearly fighting from behind.
>>>
>>>>Which in a sense he is. How have some people come to view being governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2006 and being president of the U.S. the past four years as equivalent experiences?
>>>
>>>You're kidding right? Do you remember 2008? ;)
>>>
>>>>Among Romney's more ludicrous statements:
>>>>
>>>>1. "On day one I am going to accuse China of currency manipulation."
>>>
>>>Not accuse but declare. Big difference.
>>>
>>>>2. "I am going to create 12 million new jobs and I know how to do it."
>>>
>>>I don't think this debate really matters. The economy is first, last & everything this year. Foreign policy barely registers as a top concern.
>>
>>"Accuse" vs. "declare" seems like a distinction without a difference to me. IAC why would Romney want to start right out doing something that inflammatory? Bob Schieffer asked an excellent follow-up question IMO -- wouldn't that risk starting a trade war with China? Romney said we already have one, holding one hand up high to indicate China's exports to us and the other hand down low to indicate our exports to them. That is not a trade war. That is a trade imbalance. The former would be much nastier to deal with.
>>
>>While I agree with you that the economy is the main factor, I don't agree that the debate didn't matter. (How convenient for the Romney side to say that).
>
>Please do not lump me on the Romney side. I'm a Bucket/Vomit guy. ;)
>
>>What I think it was about was which candidate is more Presidential, and I think that was clearly Obama. We shall see. Less than two weeks to go, and thank goodness for that.
>>
>>A few weeks ago British PM David Cameron was on the Letterman show. (A nice change of pace from some actor promoting their new movie). He described the British electoral system, in which it's all over a short time after the election is declared. He said by law he was only allowed to spend 150,000 pounds. As David Letterman likes to say himself, cut me a slice of that.
>
>We fought 2 wars to free ourselves from British limits on campaign spending. ;)

Whoops, you're right, it's free speech. I have to keep reminding myself of that. The Supreme Court said so, it must be true.