Rasmussen has obama at 50, Romney at 45. CNN may be off, but probably not by a lot. It appears obama did get some bump after the DNC. Why? probably because we have a lot of morons in this country.
Learn to *think*.
National polls are *meaningless* unless they show a true wave election effect.
Why? Go back to the "electoral college is outdated, we need a national popular vote" lie spread by the Marxists in the Dem party.
In blue strongholds such as Illinois, New York, and California, the large number of urban centers (ghettos) means that Obama wins by a very large margin...in votes earned. But this does not mean anything for the number of electoral votes: as Floriduh 2000 shows us, if you win by 400 votes or 4,000,000 votes, you get the same number of EVs from a state.
But -- the flip side of this is -- if you have a large number of people supporting you, but most of them are in a few places -- that your support is actually *weaker* outside of the strongholds, since there are only so many supporters to go around.
So a national poll (especially one which overweights Democrats) may well make Obama look stronger than he is: but since a lot of his support is from places which are heavily Donkey already, it does NOT mean (but the pollster *does* intend for you to assume it means) that his support is at that level in all states, red, blue, and swing.
So to your point: if Obama's bump is in heavily blue areas (and I have seen reports that suggest it is) then the bump in the polls for him post-DNC convention is only good for breeding Donk complacency, or for propaganda.
To Cheers!