Until we have a national popular vote, it's not a tied race

Like most national polling, Gallup's daily tracker has consistently shown a tied race, with Mitt Romney in the lead more often than not:

On the other hand, President Barack Obama has consistently held a lead in battleground state polling:
This is an update from Monday's numbers, and includes new polling from Rasmussen (Arizona and North Carolina) and Quinnipiac (Florida and Ohio, now back in blue, and Pennsylvania). And while some of these states are obviously close, many are nowhere near as tight as the national polling would suggest.

So how can national polling show a tied race when state-level polling shows Obama enjoying a 326-212 Electoral College lead?

There are two possible theories: One, there are inherent problems with polling methodology at either the state or national level, or both. That's plausible given the nation's changing demographics (particularly in the battleground states), cell phone issues, and who knows what else. The second possibility is that Mitt Romney is simply running up the margins in the non-battleground red states like Texas, while narrowing the margins in the solid blue states.

Polls like PPP's latest of Oregon give credence to Theory #2. Romney won't win the state, but if he only loses it by 8 instead of 17 like in 2008, well then, that could explain some of the narrower national margin.

The latest NBC/WSJ poll lends also supports Theory #2:

In the poll, the president leads his presumptive challenger by three points among registered voters, 47 to 44 percent, which is within the survey's margin of error [...]

Among swing-state respondents in the poll ' those living in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin ' Obama leads Romney, 50 to 42 percent.

So the race is +3 Obama nationally, but +8 in the States That Matter. That's a significant difference, and one that almost definitively confirms that yes'the race isn't tied, and won't be until we have a national popular vote. It won't matter if Romney wins Texas by 50 points or loses California by just 10. There is no consolation prize for coming close in the popular vote, or even winning it (just ask President Al Gore).

Does that mean that national polling is irrelevant? Maybe not. It should be useful to gauge momentum. Obama had much larger state-level leads earlier in the year. His state numbers have fallen alongside his national numbers.

But if you want to see who is currently winning the contest, the Electoral College tally is it. And right now, it's clear that the Obama campaign is thus far reaching the voters that will decide this election.