I don't believe Florida is crucial to Obama's cause as you say. Romney will take that state, but Obama has winning leads in enough of the other swing states to see him home. Romney's last minute attempt to unbalance the President's campaign by declaring Pennsylvania, reasonably secure for the Democrats, as "in the mix", has a hint of desperation about it. My call is 291-247 for Obama - with Florida going to Romney.

I also think Obama will be re-elected and he will probably exceed 300 electoral college votes.If pressed, I'd have to say this has been a contest between two mediocrities, a contest made quite unedifying by Obama's personal attacks on Romney's character.

Interesting to see that Julia Gillard in Australia and Ed Miliband in Britain are using the same smearing, personal attacks against their opponents. The only difference from the Obama campaign is that Gillard and Milliband are both accusing their opponents of sexism and/or misogyny. It seems that being a married man with a family is a crime in the eyes of so-called 'progressives' these days. How far the once honourable Labour movement has fallen.

The pollsters may think it's a tight race but not the punters.

On Betfair Romney is a 3 - 1 outsider in a two horse race. For the past two weeks Betfair punters have given Obama a better than 70% chance of being re-elected.

The Dow has been trending up this year and the incumbent rarely loses when that happens.

In fact, against Romney, I would say that Obama would be a shoo-in if here weren't Black. I think that will shave a percent or two of his margin.

Full disclosure: I have a mild preference for Romney. But I certainly won't be crying myself to sleep if he loses.

If I were an American I might sit this one out.

Well, it seems that President Obama has the popular vote, which is hardly ever conclusive in these contests; and the majority of the College vote as well, which is!?
I believe the College vote, which by the way is the instrument which alone decides presidential elections, has swung back to Obama?
Firstly, because Romney reversed "alleged" former core values, in an effort to win over the tea party and the recalcitrant religious right?
And then, having achieved that and secured quite a lot of "independent" electoral funding, started talking the moderate Governor Romney talk once more?
Secondly, because Sandy arrived at the most critical point for Governor Romney, allowed President Obama to be seen out and about, acting like a President; and brought to a screeching halt, what first debate momentum, Romney still retained, after a second and third debate trouncing?
I also believe that some of the college vote incorporates some deeply held religious beliefs, which are often offended by obscene wealth; and or, the idea than an election; and or, the most powerful political position in the world, can be bought?
[Two trillion plus, thus far and counting!]
I also believe the abortion debate has changed quite a few minds; and or, voting intentions?
And finally, I believe the American people and indeed, the college are just plain war weary, and may have been put offside somewhat, by the Romney call to arms and intemperate sabre rattling?
Obama by a short half head!
Rhrosty.

For so many Americans who cast a vote for Obama four years ago, what good did it do? very little. They wanted hope and change and got neither.

If Obama wins, he will not have the mandate he had four years ago, when the Democrats controlled both the Congress and the White House. It is very unlikely that Democrats will control the House of Representatives after tomorrow, so bitter, dysfunctional, corrupt, political partisanship will begin anew starting Wednesday if Obama wins, which I think is likely. If Romney wins, Republicans probably won't control the Senate. No one knows what Romney would do in any case; he sold his soul to the Devil when he was 3 years old.

When Obama and the Democrats did have the mandate four years ago, they hastened the nation toward bankruptcy by expanding the Medicare system while excluding a single-payer option. They passed a completely ineffectual financial "reform" bill (Dodd-Frank) which restored exactly none of the safeguards that Roosevelt and the New Dealers put into place in the 1930s to rein in the Big Money Boys.

The other thing the Democrats did in 2009/10 was to pass a 787 billion dollar stimulus program which, if you believe in such things, simply increased the public debt without creating any lasting or fundamental change in the structurally flawed American economy, which still sucks today and will suck tomorrow too.

The reason the economy is going to suck forever is that American people, ordinary citizens have been sold down the river for 30 years now by wealthy corporate elites, especially Financial Tycoons, but also non-financial interests, with the connivance of a corrupt Congress. Obama ably continued the tradition of selling the US down the river, for example in mortgage write-down programs which were advertised as providing help for underwater homeowners but were actually designed to protect the banks holding the mortgages. Income and wealth inequality has actually gotten worse under Obama than it did under Bush.

Does it really matter who wins? Business as usual will continue, to the world’s detriment.

America is an amazing place. They are having an election contest between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, both of them stooges of the Corporate-Military-Industrial-Political-Capitalist regime.

If Americans had any sense, they wouldn't vote for either stooge. They would vote for independents and get rid of the corrupt two-party system once and for all.

If Australians followed suit, we'd get something right for a change!