Charlie's just annoying because he's behind a paywall. Sabato is really awesome -- of the 'mainstream' pundits, he's probably the best out there -- and Nate Silver is pretty good too, though Silver is more interested in the mathematics than the politics and sometimes it can show.
Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.
As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.
You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?
What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?
Occasionally, they do (two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the California gubernatorial election 1982 and the UK parliamentary election 1992); there's just doesn't seem to be any reason to think there is one in 2012. Though, they're called 'silent' for a reason.
I don't think internal polling is accurate, and I don't think Sabato is a very good analyst. He refuses to recognize Michigan and Pennsylvania as swing states, and he didn't think Chris Christie would get elected governor in New Jersey. Nate Silver's models are crazy skewed toward Obama; if you are watching the polls, then it's clear that there's a 50-50 chance of either candidate winning. Even if Obama has an edge, he does NOT have an 89% chance of winning reelection. I personally like Michael Barons. He may be a little too biased toward the right; he predicted in 2010 that Sharron Angle would beat Harry Reid in Nevada. But at least he based it on polls, whereas Sabato totally disregarded the polls when he predicted Christie wouldn't win in New Jersey in '09.
