We start with the question posed by Peter Kirsanow in National Review Online, noting, among other things, unemployment figures, economic trends and polling on such questions as "is the country on the right track?" and "are you better off now than four years ago?" etc... and asks... "Why isn't Romney ahead by ten points?"
Possibly because Romney doesn't know why you can't roll down windows on an airplane. [That, and he wants to get those gosh darned snakes off his dang nabbed plane. Man, I could use a milkshake right about now.]
In short, Mitt Romney is, at the end of the day, an out of touch rich boy dumb-ass (never saw that one before... especially among Republicans). As the great Mike Huckabee observed, "Mitt Romney looks like the guy who fired you." It certainly begins to explain just why a President who campaigned on being "Not George W. Bush" but has spent nearly four years being, well, George W. Bush [and with the same disastrous results of pursuing these policies once predicted by... Barack Obama...] is still in this at all, let alone ahead in key "battleground states" (and even Chris Christie observes that, in the context of Mitt Romney, "if the election were tomorrow... that would be a problem".)
I remain more than agnostic on this election: I actually hope neither of the Wall Street Darlings manning the tops of "the Two Parties'[TM]" tickets "wins," as both are committed to our suicidal national status quo (with only stylistic and atmospheric differences between them). But that's not how the system works: one of Goldman Sachs' chosen candidates will get to chose other Goldman Sachs employees to man key governmental posts for another four years, for the purpose of continuing our neo-feudal hierarchy as far as it will go.
Needless to say, the Rockefeller family will have nothing to worry about for at least another four years.