Over the last couple of days, national polls have hit us like whiplash, with Governor Romney leading one day and President Obama leading the next. 

Today, more head-spinning data came out--this time from the swing states that will determine the outcome of the election. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist surveys from Florida and Virginia show a tightening race, with President Obama and Governor Romney locked in a statistical tie. In Ohio--the state that could really determine the election--the President maintains a small lead.

One of most interesting points in the polls is this: an overwhelming majority of people surveyed had made up their minds before the debate.

Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report came on the show today to break down all of the recent polling data and explain that the debate really did alter the dynamic of the race, making it more competitive than ever. 

For nearly a week now, Governor Romney's beef with Big Bird has dominated the news cycle, obscuring the larger issue at hand: education.

Under Romney's plan, the federal government would likely play a much smaller role in the classroom. Privately, he has promised to reduce the size of the Department of Education. Publicly, he has proposed a voucher-like system that would take billions of dollars in Title 1 and IDEA funding now given to schools and direct it to students so they can take it with them to the public or private institution of their choice. The idea is untested, but it is popular with his conservative base, which wants the federal government to stay out of the curriculum and testing business. 

One of the biggest unknowns is how Romney's policy changes would impact federal funding for public schools. The Republican nominee’s budget proposal calls for non-defense discretionary spending to be reduced to 20 percent of GDP. According to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, achieving that target would result in a $6.1 trillion dollar cut over ten years, meaning education could see some major reductions.

At last week's debate Romney insisted that he's "not going to cut education funding." Regardless, it’s safe to assume spending would not increase. "Unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney understands that more spending is the last thing our schools need," Romney's campaign wrote in an education policy paper earlier this year. "Romney’s reforms will focus on ensuring that money is spent well."

So far this election cycle, outside groups, including those money-hungry Super PACs, have spent $641 million on races across the country. Yes, you read that right, $641 million.

Much of the attention has been focused on the portion of that staggering tab that has gone to fund a deluge of swing state ads aimed at swaying the presidential race. But what has gotten far less attention is the outsized spending on those critical down ballot races that will determine which party takes control of the House of Representatives at the beginning of next year. To date, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outside interest groups have spent nearly $84 million dollars on House races this election cycle. On just the general election alone, the New York Times reports that outside groups have spent at least $38.5 million.

Still, despite the competitive spending, Democrats may not be able to overcome one thing: simple math. According to the Washington Post, the only way Democrats can take back the gavel from Speaker John Boehner is to win 24 "toss-up" seats and half of the 18 races characterized as "lean Republican." 

After President Obama's much-criticized debate performance last week, the pressure is now on Vice President Joe Biden to perform.

According to Politico, Thursday's showdown between Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan is one debate "that could really matter."

That's why Democrats want Biden to go on the offensive and remind voters that the Romney/Ryan ticket is not what it appears, despite an attempt last week to pivot to the center. 

So what is Biden doing to prepare? In recent days, he has been holed up at debate "school," sitting in front of a television watching vintage Ryan interviews and speeches and doing mock debates with Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is playing the role of Ryan. 

Republican strategist Steve Schmidt told Politico that with Sarah Palin no longer across the stage, Biden will "be bringing his proverbial nunchucks and brass knuckles." 

By the end of the day President Obama’s less-than-stellar debate performance may be a thing of the past. The President struck something like numerical gold today, after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%, the lowest number since President Obama took office.

Blatantly worried that the rate will only help President Obama politically, some Republicans turned to some of their favorite age-old past times: debunking math and devising conspiracy theories.

Former GE CEO Jack Welch kicked things off with a tweet: “Unbelievable jobs numbers. These Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers.” That was followed by a Facebook post by Rep. Allen West, in which he managed to sprinkle in other Republican scare tactics with the ludicrous idea that nonpartisan statisticians are cooking the books. "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here,” Rep. Allen West wrote. “Somehow by manipulation of data we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the Presidential election. This is Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book "Rules for Radicals"- a must read for all who want to know how the left strategize.”

On the show today, CNBC's Eamon Javers may have coined a new term, referring to these conspiracy theorists as "jobers."

You may recall a few months ago that James Lipton of "Inside the Actors Studio" went to the pages of New York Magazine and gave his unsolicited advice to Governor Romney on how to act like, well, a human. After last night's debate, it appears Romney may have followed some of Lipton's suggestions.

On the show today, Lipton gave the Republican nominee some positive reviews, saying Romney went from appearing like that unlikable boss who makes "lame jokes" to someone with "conviction" who relishes being on stage.

The same could not be said for President Obama.

The President looked like he wanted to run from the auditorium and get right back on Air Force One. Throughout the 90-minute showdown he stared at his lectern, instead of looking at his two main audiences: Governor Romney and the millions of people watching on television. "He avoided both studiously," said Lipton. "What a beginner's mistake for a great politician."

Is President Obama loading up his zinger arsenal with some memorable one-liners for tonight? Ben LaBolt, national press secretary for the Obama campaign, says don't expect any rhymes or anything in that "ridiculously cheesy category."

Instead, LaBolt says to count on some "sharp" and "quick-witted" responses from the President. Sharp can be good, but who wouldn't enjoy an original presidential rhyme or two? Check out the full exchange to the right, and get on Twitter to let us know what you think of tonight's debate. #NowWithAlex

Based on the mountains of polling data, it's probably safe to assume that Governor Romney's path to victory is looking a bit rough. Just look at Nate Silver's influential blog, which puts President Obama's chances of winning at 85.7% and predicts that he will collect 320 electoral votes and nearly 52% of the popular vote. 

Today, Silver came on the show to discuss why some predictions are right on target, while others completely miss the mark. In his new book, "The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail--But Some Don't," Silver says an accurate political prediction may come down to personality. He illustrates this point by referencing Isaiah Berlin's famous 1953 essay, "The Hedgehog and The Fox." Hedgehogs are big personalities who see the world through the prism of big ideas. Foxes, on the other hand, take a more nuanced and complicated view of the world. In politics, hedgehogs may be better at giving good soundbites. But foxes are the ones to go to when you're looking for an accurate forecast.

Silver writes:

You can get lost in the narrative. Politics may be especially susceptible to poor predictions precisely because of its human elements: a good election engages our dramatic sensibilities. This does not mean that you must feel totally dispassionate about a political event in order to make a good prediction about it. But it does mean that a fox's aloof attitude can pay dividends.  

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy had a secret recording system installed in the Oval Office. Hidden on his desk and on a coffee table were microphones that picked up hundreds of hours of meetings with his staff, other elected officials and even former Presidents. The transcripts of many of these extraordinary conversations are compiled in the new book, "Listening In: The Secret White House Recordings of John F. Kennedy," by Ted Widmer.

The tapes provide an unusual glimpse into Kennedy's management style and decision-making process. One conversation that we didn't get to on the show today was between Kennedy and his predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the threat of nuclear war looming like it had never before, Kennedy sought the advice of the former President and five-star general, one of the few people in the world who could feel the weight that was on Kennedy's shoulders. Take a listen to the clip below. 

It appears Governor Mitt Romney is now questioning his own arithmetic. At a campaign event yesterday, he admitted to voters that they shouldn't count on "a huge cut in taxes."

Why the apparent backtrack? It could be because Romney is finally accepting what independent analysts have been saying for months: his tax plan is mathematically impossible. In an often-cited report, the Tax Policy Center says the only way Romney could implement a tax plan that wouldn't add to the deficit would be to hike taxes on the middle class--that is to say, people making less than $200,000 a year.

There's more to the mathematical mirage: Romney, like most Republicans, believes the only way to achieve economic growth is by slashing taxes for the highest earners. But the proof isn't necessarily in the pudding, according to the New York Times' David Leonhardt, who joined Alex on the show today. In a recent column, Leonhard printed a chart showing that over the last two decades strong economic growth didn't happen during times of lower tax rates.

Leonhardt isn't arguing that higher taxes lead to more growth. Instead, he's saying that when one looks at all the factors that go into creating a healthy economic environment, a single-minded focus on reducing the marginal tax rates for the wealthy may be misguided. If anything, according to recent column by the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, lower tax rates for the highest income bracket only add to the growing problem of income inequality. Reason number 1,000,0001 why the trickle never makes it all the way down to the bottom. 

You've all heard about the super PAC, the unlimited political spending machines that are reshaping the way campaigns are run. But how did we get to this place? And is it just the beginning of a political system completely controlled by money? In an insightful new article in The Atlantic, James Bennet explores the rise and fall of campaign finance regulations over the last century and talks with the foot soldiers who are responsible for this new big money environment. According to Bennet, one prediction of those pushing for unlimited contributions and a bigger say by business and billionaires is that in a few years politicians will want their own campaigns to look more like super PACs. "To have any chance of competing with the super pacs, they will abolish, or at least drastically raise, all contribution limits, to whichever candidate, from whatever source. And then the money will really start to pour in," Bennet wrote. 

Click on the video clip above to see our full discussion with James Bennet.

Governor Romney's 47% remarks have re-ignited the fight between the so-called "makers" and "takers." But what Romney failed to mention during his candid fundraiser comments was that Republicans are one of the main reasons some households are not paying federal income taxes.

Case in point: the Earned Income Tax Credit. Created in 1975, the program provides refundable tax credits to poor working families, essentially zeroing at their federal income tax bills. It saw a huge expansion in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan--yes, you read that right--signed his Tax Reform Act into law.

"Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether," Reagan declared. "I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best antipoverty bill, the best profamily measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States."

The idea of the EITC was not to give poor families handouts. Instead, it was designed to allow people to achieve the American Dream by working. According to the Tax Policy Center, of the 38 million households that didn't pay federal income taxes in 2011, 30% qualified for refunds like the EITC. Based on studies, the credit appears to be doing the trick. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC and the Child Tax Credit lifted 8.9 million people out of poverty in 2010. 

For a further look at the EITC and the falsities of Romney's 47% comments, check out Alex's discussion with the Washington Post's Ezra Klein.