I think they mean Pollyanna.

Either way, things are looking good for the Obama camp. And being an Eeyore sort of person (sticking with the apparent Disney theme), that worries me.

People seem to be taking this election more seriously than any since at least 1992. The proof -- voters recognize that either Obama or McCain will occupy the White House in 2009, and THOSE TWO represent the only real choices, rather than any of the usual flood of third party candidates.

The lack of traction for any of those candidates, in particular Ralph Nader (our era's version of Harold Stassen), is perhaps the most encouraging indicator of Obama's likely victory. Voters see quite clearly this year, recognizing that voting for Nader, Barr, or any of the other minor party candidates is truly pointless.

Little or nothing is being written about a so-called "spoiler effect" attributable to Nader et al. What a welcome relief from the last few election cycles!

Lately, it’s looking more and more like this thing might really be over ...

It ain't over until the votes are counted ... to whatever extent that happens.

I'm not going to breathe easy until I hear McCain's concession speech. Hell, I'm not going to breathe totally easy until Obama is sworn in.

Do NOT say "it is over". It is not, until the last slimy trick is played and the last ballot is crunched on Diebold.

I am barely daring myself to hope for a bright future for our nation.

Please, God, this time... let good prevail.

They'll be timid, tame, useless.

Don't go resting on your laurels now, people. If anyone is capable of losing this, it's the Democrats.

If we get comfortable and start calling it "over," all those young voters we worked so hard to win over will just stay at home.

McCain can still win this, and his supporters are just pissed off enough to go to the polls despite the fact their man is way behind.

As an Obama supporter, I'm glad to hear good news like this, but I'm not resting yet. I still reminded my friends, family, and co-workers to leave home on Election Day and go vote; no matter what the recent polls say. I will not truly feel relaxed until the day after when we hopefully will have determined who the winner is. It's mid-October and I'm still waiting for the October surprise. Most likely from the Republicans too if the current mood is persistent. Perhaps Bristol will be getting married? Or perhaps Osama will be making a video like what happened before the last presidental election? I'm not sure. Whatever is in store, everyone still needs to be on their feet. It's the last few miles that count too.

The way you are presenting margin of error is misleading, as with most journalists who discuss polls, and it has in the past led to "surprises" on election day, with a subsequent rush to "explain" the "surprises" -- and some really nonsensical explanations (respondents lied in exit polls, the voters changed their minds at the last minute).

In reality, IF a poll has surveyed more than 1200 people for a particular state, AND the sample has been properly balanced, AND they have made proper assumptions on their "turnout" model (i.e., the assigned multiplier for the demographic that each respondent represents is tuned to this year's environment and not the one of 4 years ago) -- THEN and only then, there is a 95% statistical likelihood that the numbers are within 3%. Got that?

If not, here's a decent discussion on the topic:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/9707/45345.html

What this really means, "Bradley Effect" aside, is that if there are 100 polls in the same state during the same time period and they all sample 1200 people and they all use the same assumptions about turnout, and 95 of them show Obama ahead, then he really is ahead.

That's why, if you use RCP's nearly-worthless "average" of polls, you're getting a skewed view, while pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com, whose models account for the "noise" common in polling, are more conservative in their extrapolations.

Please, please, please, don't start the meme that the election is over when early voting has just started in a few states and the rest of us have yet to go to the polls. And please don't do the setup for Gingrich and Grover Norquist to say on election day, "it looks like the voters like divided government" or "it looks like the voters have repudiated giving the Democrats a mandate", or some other such pundit nonsense that attempts to interpret why "polling" doesn't match "turnout".

Obama needs every vote he can get. Period. There will be voter suppression attempts made in every one of the states that is in doubt, and here's a statistic for you -- out of the so-called "swing" states, Republicans still control the Secretary of State's office in CO, MI, IN, and FL, so there's not likely to be much enforcement of constitutional rights there if the vote is close. This is in part why Obama has focused his efforts in OH, VA, NV, NM, and NC, where a close race won't be sullied by partisan law enforcement.

Please don't suppress turnout by starting this "it's all over" meme. The only poll that counts is the one that's made on election day, and these scoundrels will not give up power without a fight. They are relying on us breathing a sigh of relief and not remaining vigilant. We also need heavy turnout to ensure that the Democrats have a congress that has enough of a majority to ensure our judicial appointments and agenda can be enacted without obstruction.

These polls look good, but if you take a look pollster.com, Obama has states with 256 electoral votes in the "strong" category. Until one of the 7 "lean" states is moved to "strong", there isn't enough statistical evidence to say he's in the clear, and even then, it's only a snapshot.

It's all fun to talk about the polls, but in reality this is just like the baseball playoffs -- execution of GOTV efforts is all that matters. Can you tell I'm from Chicago?