The Electoral College Map as of August 2, 2012 - A compilation of all current polls from all states.

Very beautiful picture indeed! I'm just praying he picks Bobby Jindal because he's just as big of an idiot as Romney.

This isn't even close I see Romney leading 287-222 with some still up for grabs.

Those are the poll results. Actual numbers. All Polls - All States - As of right now.

The polls have been manipulated all year with too many Democrats being sampled, even the pollsters have admiited that fact. The media will no longer taint the outcome of elections, as we are all on to their corrupt behaviors.

Yahn. Rasmussen and Fox are included. Did you even bother going to the website?

Yes, how do you think I got my own figures? I watched Rasmussen yesterday say the majority of polls are over sampled with Democrats. Rasmussen's latest poll shows a statistical tie in all states Romney needs but PA.

Rasmussen got one poll right 12 years ago. They were the least accurate of all polls in the 2010 Elections. They run an average bias of 3.9% towards Republicans. If you remove the Rasmussen results, Obama's Electoral count is much higher.

All the polls are biased with poor samplings that skew the results, this is done on purpose for political positioning. This is what is wrong with our media sources, they have their own agendas instead of reporting the truth.

Are you conservatives born that stupid or do you work really hard at it? A combination of both IMO. Did you even look at the numbers? It's compiled, including results from right-wing leaning polls such as Rasmussen and FAUX news.

I watched Rasmussen yesterday say the majority of polls are over sampled with Democrats. Rasmussen's latest poll shows a statistical tie in all states Romney needs but PA.

What part of "compiled average" you're not getting?

What part of this don't you understand.

All the polls are biased with poor samplings that skew the results, this is done on purpose for political positioning. This is what is wrong with our media sources, they have their own agendas instead of reporting the truth

Oh my god! Do you HEAR yourself? You're arguing the same, already-refuted point over and over and over again. Rasmussen is extremely Right-wing biased. So is Fox. If they claim that there is a Left-wing bias to the polls, they don't have much credibility on the matter, do they? And YET, despite having these Right-wing hacks in the mix, Your president keeps his job, by a wide margin. If you don't like it, don't deny it. Fix it.

Even the liberal MSM media is admitting that polling samples include 9-12% more Democrats.

Maybe that's because 9-12% more people admit to being Democrats.

?? Fact, there are still 9-12% more Democrats in the sample. What has admiiting what you are have to do with it? They know what you are before they call you.

Polling shows consistently that party affilliation is almost identical for Republicans and Democrats with more Independents than either. All polls should reflect those characteristics.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15...

When you do a random sample, that's what you get. The margin of error is roughly 5%, depending on the sample-size. So it could be only 4-7%. They didn't call equal numbers of registered Republicans and Democrats. They chose random numbers. Unless these polls ASKED for their party-affiliation, there is no way they could KNOW if it was Blue-heavy. And if they did, maybe it's because a lot of Conservatives are embarrassed to be affiliated with this party. I know I would be.

Is that more liberal logic? They know exactly how many of each (Independents, Republicans and Democrats) that they poll, and 9-12% more of Democrats is well out of line. How many of the Independents are also left leaning? Polls are no longer accurate, they are tools for the liberals to manipulate opinion.

My, my; did we hit a nerve there?

It looks like you are the child talking like a 13 year old delinguent. Mature adults don't cuss like thugs.

They don't use words like "cuss". Grown-ups use many words, some of which are offensive to the petulant little children among us. I can count on one hand, the number of people over the age of 20, that I know who never "cuss". Now go play with your toys and piss off.

Exactly my point of where the liberals have taken us. As a parent I can thank God my kids didn't end up like you.

Great. Another generation of backwards childish morons from your family, that we'll have to fight.

Four of them, their spouses and 13 grandkids all Conservatives; we don't practice abortions, we will let you liberals do that and eventually abort yourself to distinction.

I think the word you're looking for is "EXtinction". Clearly you're quite the intellect.
I've never had an abortion, nor has anyone aborted any child of mine. My ex-wife and I have 3 kids, whom we are raising to be thoughtful, and loving. I am pro-choice. The choice she and I made, and the choice that MOST Liberals make, is NOT to abort. You really don't have any relationship with reality at all, do you?

I was being sarcastic, meaning aborting yourselves to fame, I guess it was a little over your thought process.

Rasmussen got one poll right 12 years ago (no doubt by accident) and ever since Cons have been proclaiming them as the 'most accurate.' They seem to forget that Rasmussen was the LEAST accurate of all polls in the 2010 Elections with a 3.9% Republican Favored bias. Although Republicans did dominate the 2010 Elections, Scott Rasmussen had picked the wrong winners in the wrong states.

Scott Rasmussen is a partisan Republican hack who once worked for the right-wing Worldnutdaily.com as a columnist. The Center for Public Integrity database on campaign consultants shows "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for both the "Republican National Committee" and "Bush, George W." He also doesn't use polling with cell phones because it costs too much money. Whatever numbers come out of Rasmussen should be flipped to be more accurate.

I know. But you can't expect these guys to let facts and logic to stand in the way of their dogma.

If you dig into the analysis Ken, it looks like this site gives Obama 247 electoral votes and Romney 191. The remaining 100 they have as toss up. So your numbers are within the range of possibility. But I think you are a bit optimistic....it is highly likely the country will reelect the incumbent.

The real tell here, however, is Massachusetts and Michigan. These two states know Romney better than anyone else in the country and they both lean toward Obama. This suggests as the country gets to know Romney better, his support will decline.

Not from some of the key analyst who have been very accurate in the past.

The most accurate analyst by far is Allan Lichtman and he's predicted an Obama victory. Yes! He and his system for going 7 for 7 picking the past presidential elections is NON-PARTISAN.

No one in America is any longer non-partisan.

At this stage, everyone has polls they chose to believe. Some of these polls are honest but all of these polls are biased by the bias of the pollster. There is only one poll which matters and that will be taken on November 6th.

A serious student looks beneath the numbers....At this point, it looks like Obama has NY, CA, and IL sown up as well as a number of smaller states; that is a lot of electoral votes for Romney to overcome. Romney has a lot of smaller states and will probably get Texas....but to win he needs to get a lot of states which are too close to call. States like FL and PA. Now I don't know FL ... but in PA, the Philly suburbs have been the traditionally decided the outcome. During the 20th century, the Republicans dominated local politics in these suburbs, i.e., Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware Counties. By 2008, this was no longer true. These suburbs, however often split the ticket for Presidential elections and may this year as well.

OH, FL and VA will decide the election.

If Romney cannot win his home state of Massachusetts or his fathers state of Michigan, it is unlikely he will win Va and FL. As for OH, Romney doesn't stand a chance. Only an analyst smoking some form of intoxicant would give him a chance in this largely blue collar, union labor state.

Ohio is where I am from and it is a strong Republican state normally. Obama did win in 2008, but it is still not in his pocket this election.

I don't understand Ohio as well as you but have in-laws and friends there. Based on the transition from 2004 to 2008 and the character of the two candidates....it is my impression that Ohio will be a nail biter for Obama but Romney doesn't have a chance. The deciding factor will be Romney's position on the GM bailout and his lack of experience at creating jobs.

What experience does Obama have at creating jobs? Since Obama took office he has a net job loss still after spending over $2 trillion in stimulus. GM has had huge job losses in America and many in the unions are upset with Obama allowing so many jobs to go overseas.

How can it be a nail biter and Romney not have a chance?