BREAKING (HEH): IF OBAMA GETS A BIGGER TURNOUT THAN HE DID IN 2008, AND THE GOP A SMALLER ONE, THEN OBAMA WILL WIN

THAT'S WHAT ALL - REPEAT ALL - THE POLLS WHICH SHOW OBAMA BEATING ROMNEY ESSENTIALLY ASK YOU TO BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN.

• DESPITE 2010.
• DESPITE THE FACT THAT OBAMA'S APPROVAL NUMBER IS UNDERWATER.
• DESPITE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.
• DESPITE THE INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT ROMNEY IS:

1. AHEAD OF MCCAIN IN EARLY TURNOUT, 
2. AHEAD OF MCCAIN WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS, 
3. AHEAD OF MCCAIN IN FUNDRAISING, 
4. AHEAD OF MCCAIN IN POLLING IN EVERY STATE NOT IN DISPUTE 
5. AND IS INDISPUTABLY LEADING IN STATES THAT OBAMA CARRIED IN 2008, LIKE FLORIDA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

AND DESPITE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT OBAMA IS BEHIND HIS 2008 TOTALS WITH JEWS, BLACKS, WOMEN, INDEPENDENTS, AND CATHOLICS.

THEREFORE, IT IS IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE THAT OBAMA WOULD BE LEADING IN OHIO OR ANY OTHER TOSS-UP STATE.

OR AS ACE PUT IT:

NumberMuncher made a good point on Twitter, a general "I Call Bullshit" statement on the various polls showing Obama with big leads in Ohio, Virginia, and even North Carolina (!!!). 

It's very simple: Swing states are swing states because neither party has much of a lead in the states. The outcome of any election, then, depends heavily on which way Independents vote. 

A swing state is a swing state, basically, because the parties are tied there (basically, within a few points), and the Independents play tiebreaker. 

Any state in which Obama loses Independents by six, eight, or ten points but somehow -- as these polls claims -- wins the state anyway are not "swing states," almost by definition. 

We have a name for this category of states: We call them Safe Democratic states, where it really doesn't matter what Independents think because the Democratic majority is strong enough to carry the state in virtually any situation.

BOTTOM-LINE: DICK MORRIS IS RIGHT: IT'S SHAPING UP TO BE A ROMNEY LANDSLIDE.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.