Its interesting that Romney says that Obama doesnt have a plan because the way it looks to me, Obama seems to have a more comprehensive future plan than Romney. All I have heard of Romney's plans dont really make sense to me or suggest that he will do a better job. And speaking as a non-american, I have to say I very very much prefer Obama and his experience over the gaffiness of Romney on foreign affairs. And this is not to include the the foreign affairs disaster that was the Bush era.

I know you were talking about swings in net differences, and I'm saying there hasn't been that big of a swing....not even close actually.

Sept.23: Obama-48.6; Romney-44.9: Margin= +3.7 Obama

Oct.23: Obama 47.2; Romney 47.8; Margin= +0.6 Romney

Toatal Change= 4.3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Take into account that the polls tended to indicate that Obama's lead was diminishing before the debate (maybe the post-convention bump was diminishing), you actually have evidence that the swing after the debates wasn't even that big (debate was on Oct. 3, so most polls aren't going to pick up debate bumps until Oct. 5, maybe Oct. 4 for some, becuase of how they report their numbers)

@thismeintiel

Technically you are correct, but it would be all but impossible. I don't think there has ever been a Republican to win the White House who didn't carry Ohio. Hell I think it is worse then that. When it comes to that fact it can be what amounts to being a self fulfilling prophecy. Losing Ohio could suppress turnout in western states, because it makes the whole election out to be a foregone conclusion. Republicans stay home, and Democrats turn out in droves. It is a terribly slim margin at best.

I wouldn't fault the polling methodology either. Typically more Ohioans identify themselves as Democrats then they do Republicans. You should think of that as more of a default position then something that is carved into the bedrock. Ohio is a swing state, because that middle does indeed swing. Someone identifying themselves as being a democrat doesn't mean they vote solidly Democratic, or indeed Republican voting solidly Republican. I know Democrats who haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election in twenty years.

As for your supposition about turnout I have to say based upon my personal experience you have one hell of a pipe dream going on there. Firstly everyone in this state knows their votes count, and secondly we have been super saturated. They have pulled out every trick in the book to get us to the polls. Even if there is going to be some kind of suppressed turnout it isn't going to be in favor of Mitt Romney. I live in rural Ohio where the turnout is strongly Republican, and I will tell you this now the Obama supporters are being far more vocal then Romney supporters on the whole.

I would describe one camp as being overly excited, and the other as being very subdued. They just don't seem to be very excited about their candidate. It is like they plan to vote for him, but it is like they really don't want to do that. I don't see the Obama supporters having problems with getting to the polls. I could very easily see some Romney supporters just not being able to summon the will.

Either way I don't see it making much of a difference unless the vote becomes exceedingly tight. Any kind of suppressed turnout isn't going to offset a lean in the electorate as a whole. I mean if fifty three percent of the electorate is voting for the president it doesn't matter if the base shows up in force or not.

Anyway take it for what it is worth, but from what I have seen Romney supports are comporting themselves in the same way that Kerry, Gore, and McCain supports did before those elections. I keep running into supporters of the president making a case for their guy, and the most I have gotten out of a Romney supporter is they don't trust Obama. I mean that is terribly vulnerable right there. That is just a real fucking bad sign. If you have one group spreading the word, and the other withdrawing.

Elections aren't just won or lost in the mind they are won and lost in the heart. The side with more heart has the most important edge of all. In Ohio that is the kind of thing that can swing an election. Anyway I will tell you if I come across a evangelical Romney supporter. It would be interesting to see some kind of life.

Romney needs Ohio, and Florida actually.  Obama doesn't.

http://electoral-vote.com/

This has one of the best electoral maps, even if it does fall into liberal spin category.

You could argue that the first debate "moved the needle" in a way that neither of the subsequent two did, and therefore that Romney "won" the debates.

But winning the debates, without a knock-out blow is more like winning rounds in a boxing match than anything else.  Without the knockout, the fight is decided at a later time.  That is the case with these debates: Romney threw a haymaker in the first round, Obama bounced back in Round 2 and threw his own in Round 3.  Whether your prefered one over the other is meaningless in as much as neither knocked the other guy out.

My gut tells me this is going to be a close race Nov 6th.