all along it has been provided that the election will decide the validity of the claim, rather than a trial. you repeatedly confound the SEC and FEC documents - factcheck does not provide evidence fully accounting for the problems found in the latter. this runs parallel to romney's recent remarks defending himself explicitly using claims of non-management, but as with the factcheck analysis, this does not address the concerns about non-involvement.

some mistaken conceptions about the 2008 have arisen, though - you will probably find that obama did release birth certificate evidence in the middle of the summer as a result of media pressure. but there is a fundamental logical problem developing here: a dismissive approach to the voter decision as an ongoing process, shaped by discursive evidence as it unfolds, is incompatible with a citation of recent polling (or polling in general). it is nonsensical to suggest that polling could provide valid evidence of opinion transitions while downplaying the idea that people pay attention to ongoing events and that this has an effect on their choices.

to argue otherwise would set the entire field of marketing as actually invalid. the fact that romney holds a lead in spite of a mass of advertising does not indicate that it is meaningless, but that it has only had an effect on the rate of change. this is surely a troubling notion for the obama campaign, but only one which warrants additional efforts.

regardless, an interesting conclusion can readily be drawn from the 'honesty' polling. further investigation would reveal that does provide indication of a shift in perceptions consequent to one such effort:

Code:
Do you think Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy, or not?
		Yes	No	(Don't know)
15-17 Jul 12	51	46	4

Do you think “Honest” describes Obama, or not? 
		Yes, it does	No, it doesn’t	(Don’t know) 
5-7 Dec 11	57%		40	3
we can easily observe a parallel in the presence of a fall, and yet through this subject we find a control for "a brutal primary battle" by its absence. the perception of honesty in romney has fallen a greater degree in the latest polling. it is unfortunate that the contrast is not directly with recent weeks (but we can not do anything about non-existent data); the important part is that the polling examines the temperature of the moment. recent events are tied to recent polls through virtue of the linear nature of time.

we conclude with "a look at what really matters" through some polling data; yet is this not "[trying] to tie it to recent events with out providing polling proof from the previous weeks"? you are making a claim about favorables without such information. obama's unfavorables have been hovering between 40 and 50% for the last three years. what is the causal factor and its timeframe?

additionally, it is probably not a useful argument that 60% of people do not care about an issue when 40% of them evidently do. constant discussion of an issue necessarily grants it importance - it becomes worth caring about. a campaign wants this transition to happen in favor of their interests rather than against them.