I don't quite understand why Nate Silver is getting so much attention, and attacks, this year. He has his formulas, explains and defends them at length, and follows the numbers. He was wrong when he predicted the defeat of Harry Reid in 2010, although Jon Ralston, a highly respected Las Vegas Sun reporter, made the correct call. Which to me means we need reporters, not pundits, with the experience and knowledge to evaluate the plethora of prognostications, the history of the state and candidates, and apply their judgment.
Warren and Obama look like winners to me. Warren is the first state-wide candidate that I know of whose volunteers knocked on doors. Romney needs too many things to go right, and too many polls to go wrong, to get to 270. He never quite closed the deal, and I don't think the Republicans are ready to govern. They haven't had any real debate about what went wrong under George Bush. But I wouldn't be shocked if he managed to do it. The mood of the country seems to have stayed pretty much the same since before the 2006 mid-terms, pessimistic. The electorate is divided, no matter the economic situation each side seems to start with 45%.