But I'll just deal (again) with your very first assertion:
Polls indicated that Romney was going to win the election.
In fact, polling showed that Obama was going to win the electoral college, most of the swing states, and that the popular vote could go either way. (remember, all polling is a guestimate, with a margin of error generally in the 3-4% range, so in a vote of 100 million, a 50/50 poll could mean a swing of 6 million votes, 3 million for one or the other candidate).
The RCP averages showed Obama leading for 303 electoral votes, and Romney leading for 235. The final election total was 332 to 206. That's because Obama took Florida, which RCP had for Romney by 1.5%, and Obama won with 0.9%.
But RCP uses the last poll from each polling firm in the last 2 weeks for it's final averages. And for some reason, many polling firms had given up on Florida, and missed a turn to Obama in the past week. And so the final Florida RCP polls were swamped by two local, clearly less-accurate polls giving Romney a 5% and 6% lead. The two nationally known polling results (PPP and NBC) had Obama leading.
In addition, the final results, even in florida, were consistant with the undecided vote breaking to Obama. Generally speaking, undecideds break to challengers, but in this case, Sandy helped undecideds break back to Obama, because it gave Obama a "look" of being Presidential.
But even if Florida had gone the way polls suggested, Obama was still heading for a clear and convincing win. Some people were re-adjusting the polls for what they "knew", in order to make it look like Romney could be ahead, but that isn't polling, it's wishful thinking.
Another type of polling, Intrade, was all in for Obama as well.
Others pushing this "massive fraud" complaint will say that Romney was leading in the "4 swing states", but in 3 of them Obama was ahead in the polls. Ohio: Obama +1.9%. Virginia: Obama +0.3%. Colorado: Obama +1.5%
Other pipe dreams: Wisconsin: Obama +4.2%; Pennsylvania: Obama +3.8%; Michigan: Obama +4.0%
When your argument starts with a false premise, you won't get good results. Also, the economy is NOT close to "Great Depression" era conditions (sad to see a conservative fall for Obama talking points), and while unemployment is higher by some measures, it has been moving in the "right" direction rather than the "wrong" direction, so people see things as getting "better" rather than "worse". Remember that "most" people who had jobs still have jobs, and most people who don't have jobs are natural democratic constituencies anyway.
The economic presidential models actually gave a slight edge to Obama in the last month.
But you'll keep spamming threads with your extremely large and conspiratorial post (I recommend you just post it once somewhere, maybe in it's own thread, and just link to it.
Said like a true Lib.