Though the OP will be pleasing to the audience here, in reality posting the results of a poll from the one organization that consistently overpolls Republicans is not particularly informative.
A more realistic image is acquired via several means:
1. Looking at an amalgamation of national polls, which smooths out any distorting effects apparent in individual polls. Doing so reveals a +3 Obama advantage (realclearpolitics.com).
2. Looking at battleground state polling, since American presidential elections are bizarre (dysfunctional) in that they aren't simply won by popular election. Here are the results of doing so:
Colorado: Obama +3
Florida: Obama +1.4
Iowa: Obama +1.3
Nevada: Obama +5.3
Ohio (the most important of the whole lot -- no Republican has ever lost it and still won the WH; Romney will be no different): Obama +4.8
Virginia: +2.8
3. Looking at market data, which for whatever reason has a tendency to be more accurate than polling data (and there is lots more market data for this election than the usual political event where such data is collected.) Doing so (via Intrade) reveals a 58.3% chance Obama will win.
So, that's the current reality, contra Shitmussen. Of course, there is plenty of time for the political landscape to change such that a Romney victory is more likely. I don't care if you wan't Romney to win or not but just because you do doesn't mean confirmation bias in his favor or intellectual laziness is somehow ok (anywhere besides this board, that is). I am bothering with this critique b/c you are usually a good poster who sticks to the totality of facts.
