"I think the conventional wisdom is trending now towards a Obama win, something along the lines of what Karl Rove and his team pulled off for President Bush in 2004, but I'm by no means certain. And there's this striking discrepancy between national polls -- which tend to be done, by and large, by older, more-seasoned polling firms -- and state polls -- a number of which are done by less-established firms. The national polls have this a tie. The state polls, as you just suggested -- the battleground state polls suggest and indicate that President Obama is ahead in all of them."
"It seems striking that there would be this difference," he added. "And it is sobering, if you're a Romney supporter, to think that he is trailing or just tied in so many of those states."
"I think it's unlikely -- it's hard to imagine as a political journalist that all these many polls are off. But the discrepancy is unmistakable and puzzling."
Only to people who live in Roger Ailes' alternate universe. To everyone else, it's perfectly understandable.
I would have thought Brit Hume knew better, but I've overestimated pundit knowledge before.