So, like, who's winning, ya know? Well, depends who has The Math.

There's this math:

7 polls released in Ohio in past 48 hours: Obama +2, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +5, Obama +5, Obama +5. #notthatcomplicated
@fivethirtyeight via web
.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?
@fivethirtyeight via web

And there's The Math:

Dick Morris:

Whether deliberately or not, the New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac Poll is wrong! It shows Obama carrying Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In reality, Romney is leading in all three states and will carry them all.

Here’s the deal. The Times is weighting the raw survey data to reflect the ratio of Democrats to Republicans who voted in 2008. True, if we get the same massive turnout among minorities and young people that propelled Obama to victory in 2008, he will win this election and carry these states. But we won’t. All the polling shows that the electorate is now much more Republican and that GOP voters are much more motivated to turn out than their Democratic counterparts.

Unskewing polls? There's nothing worse than a washed-up nutter trying to horn in on someone else's crazy.

Harry Enten weighs in:

I learned a powerful lesson eight years ago: polling averages work. The averages have correctly predicted all state presidential contests except for five since 2000. They have accurately projected every Senate winner, save a few, over the last few years. The state polling averages say Obama is going to win.

There is a crowd, however, that believes the polls have too many Democrats. They look at the polling data and see the same, or even higher, percentage of poll respondents in states like Ohio self-identifying as Democrats than the polls had in 2008 – a year of record high enthusiasm for Democrats.

My personal opinion is that the polling averages are likely correct. I witnessed Democrats making the "skewed" argument in 2004 when polls showed "too many Republicans". The averages won, and George W Bush served another term. We'll see, though, if I'll be eating my words.

And here's the latest MI poll, a state that Romney wan't to 'expand the map' to compete in. From TPM:
Half of those polled said the rescue of GM and Chrysler was a deciding factor in their support – and of those, nearly two-thirds backed Obama. Among the slightly less than half that said it wasn’t a deciding factor, Romney had the edge, but by less -- 56% to 33%. Meanwhile, the number of Michigan voters giving Obama favorable marks rose 4 percentage points to 55% from the early October survey; Romney’s remained constant at 45%.
But then there's the math challenged from Politico:
Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign says it still has momentum. President Barack Obama’s campaign says that’s all spin.

Meanwhile, there isn’t a single well-informed pundit between them who can tell you who’s right.

Uh huh. Why not check Ohio polling? It's really not that difficult. But, hey, what's objective polling compared to insider info from the campaigns?

Gang of 500 ready to declare Obama win via state polls. Rs cite: samples too D, Mitt indy strength,national polls,cherry-picked state polls
@MarkHalperin via Twitter for iPad

No offense to pundits, but Politico says no well informed pundit knows the winner, and Halperin says 500 are about to pick Obama. Hmm.
@DemFromCT via TweetDeck

Or maybe Mittmentum? I mean, the campaign insists it's real. And what does polling tell us?

Look. At. The Chart. There's been no Romney momentum for three weeks. Is that so hard?

Flip: RCP national average to...dead even. HuffPollster to +0.8 Romney. Good reminder that 1 percentage point isn't very meaningful.
@jbplainblog via HootSuite

But since it's all about Ohio, here's Nate Cohn:

Despite Ohio's demographics and history, the polls suggest that Obama holds the votes necessary to win the Buckeye State and the presidency. If the polls look the same heading into Election Day, undecided voters wouldn't be enough to sway the outcome of the state and Romney’s chances would hinge on low Democratic turnout or his ability to peel away Obama supporters.
EJ Dionne gets the last word on compromise:
It’s true that politicians running in states dominated by the opposing party are, by necessity, less partisan. In Massachusetts, Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who is running behind Democrat and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, brags about votes he has cast with Democrats.

Two Democrats running strong races in Republican territory, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Bob Kerrey in Nebraska, play down party all they can. In one ad, Heitkamp pledges to “put partisanship aside and do what’s right for our country.” Kerrey closes his latest spot declaring that “we need to put country ahead of party.”

But their cases underscore why Democrats will remain the more pro-compromise party for some time: To hold their Senate majority, Democrats need to keep winning in smaller and rural states that lean Republican. Republicans almost everywhere — Brown is the exception — now live in fear of losing primaries to tea-party candidates such as Mourdock.

Your Email has been sent.