I think it had less to do with the media and more to do with the fact that many people, Rep/Dem/Ind, don't agree with his foriegn policies.  That and he goes around claiming that if he were in office, 9/11 would DEFINITELY not have happened.

I would say the fact that Romney managed nearly a double-digit swing in the polls, coupled with the fact that Team Obama is now giving up on FL, NC, and even CO, states that everyone assumed were a lock for Obama a mere 24 hours before the first debate, and sprinkle on top a heaping helping of the Benghazi debacle, and there's your recipe for Obama's Diminished Casserole.

Best enjoyed with a side of Big Bird, Binders and Bayonets.

Despite what the media tells you or the campaigns tell you. The debates are nothing more then a side show. Which is why the candidates treat them with so little regard. They are a meaningless exercise, and have been so for a fairly long time. The reality is the vast majority of those who watched did so for self validation. They were already locked in before tuning into the debates. It is really a beauty pageant, and the undecided who really have no stake in the whole who looked prettier debate couldn't care less. Their only concern is whether they feel that things are going well or not.

The campaigns are preaching to their base, and the media is fanning those flames for advertising revenue. Which doesn't do a damn thing for swing voters. Who are only concerned with the current condition of their lives. That is why it doesn't really matter at all. The few voters in one or two states who are going to determine this whole election the rest of the nation be damned didn't tune in to watch the freak show. They are far too grounded for that.

This election is going to be decided in Ohio. Where the president held a ten point lead less then a month ago, and still holds a five point lead today, and the entire reason for that is that his policies have helped Ohio to recover faster then most parts of the nation. Things are going so well that the president was swinging Republican votes, or at least making those voters less likely to vote. If the economy in Ohio gets even stronger leading up to election day then there isn't any reason to think those votes won't swing back to him.

The only problem I see with that theory is that the polling results haven't showed much movement from the undecided category to another side. Just looking at the trends on RCP, it looks like there are consistently around 6% of the voter saying they won't vote for one of the candidates both post-convention/pre-debate and post-debate. Granted, there might be some movement going on that the aggregate polls fail to pick up, but I think there's more than just undecided movement going on (unless the polls are picking up something besides undecided voters).

Granted, Romney picked up ground and is ahead in aggregate polls right now, but it was nowhere near a double-digit swing. Even going back to the beginning of the year, you aren't going find that big of a swing.

Fair enough.  Honestly I hadn't been watching the polls that closely until after the first debate because I thought there was like... zero chance Mitt Romney would get the election close.

I'd still bet 50 to win 25 that Obama will win.  Wonder if I can bet that in vegas... prolly not.

Are you in a battleground state?  If not, then vote for Gary Johnson.  The only wasted vote is one that goes for the candidate that doesn't match your views the closest.  I did say battleground state, because then you may feel a need to compromise.

Statistically speaking, your vote for president is pretty irrelevant anyhow, so you might as well make it count.

I actually was searching after I posted that, and it looks like there is a good bit of movement among the undecided. Some people move out of the undecided category while others move into it, so the theory might be feasible after all. This is one of the problems with popular election polling. It tells you the percentages that fall into each category and how these percentages change over time, but it often misses why that change is occuring (as in who's causing it).

"Between 3 and 4 percent of early deciders abandon their initial choice and have not made another when we re-interview them in 2012. That’s right: They have become undecided. This keeps the share of undecided voters relatively constant at any given point at approximately 6 percent; it’s just not the same 6 percent on any particular day. There’s movement into and out of being unsure (if this isn’t hard enough to follow, let me also point out that we re-interview people only once during the campaign so there may be even more volatility than we are tracking)."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/the-a-little-bit-less-undecided/

And yes, even with the close polls, I have a feeling Obama's going to win, but I don't have any data to back me up. I mean, historically, he shouldn't even have a shot becuase of the economy.

Technically, Romney doesn't have to win Ohio, though it would be much better for his chances if he did.  As for that poll, I'm not surprised it would have Obama up by 5 points when they polled Democrats more than Republicans (by 9 points, in fact).  Of course, I expect either the turn out will be equal to one another or slightly in favor of Republicans.  Maybe something similar to the election in 2010, when Republicans won many races across the state.

True he hasn't had anything close to an actual double digit lead over Obama, but I was talking about the swing in net dfference that Romney has gone through from about a month ago, where he was down about 4/5 points in most national polls and is now up 4/5 points in most national polls since the 1st debate.