>>>>

>Bill, again, what I said was that the Obama camp was quite nervous, especially after the first debate and after the Benghazi debacle that led the administration to characterize a planned attack as "spontaneous". They were nervous.

I can't speak for other people, but I was never nervous.
I followed Nate Silver's 538 column in the NYT.
His methodology is ruthlessly objective.
He not only called the outcome- he called the outcome in every state but a couple that he deemed too close to call.
Those states had little effect on the outcome.
In the states that he called, he called the margin of victory precisely in all but a couple.
Nate never showed Obama with less than a 60% chance of winning. He dropped to that level after the first debate, but shot right back up in a week.
To be clear - that wasn't a 60% margin. Nate was calling his probability of winning
Mitt never got over the high 30% range.
Going into the election, Nate had Obama with an 80% chance of winning.

Nate's doing something with sports for ESPN now.
I wouldn't advise betting against Nate.